vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the motion to proceed to consider to h.j. resolution 98, the vote is 44 yeas, 52 nays, the motion is not agreed to. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: may we have order in the senate, please. the senator from montana. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m.

with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, further that the time from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. in the morning business be reserved for the majority. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: thank you. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. the presiding officer: i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: madam president, i rise today to discuss h.r. 3801, the ultralight aircraft smuggling prevention act of 2012. and i urge the senate to pass this legislation today. passing this bill will not only help to secure our southwest border but it also affords us the opportunity to honor an incredible colleague. i had the privilege of serving with congresswoman gabby gifers in the house oygiffords in the f representatives. and she is the force behind this legislation. she originally introduced it in 2012 before the senseless act of violence that took place, and she won its passage. but the senate failed to ache it up -- failed to take it up.

over this past year, we've been working with gabby's staff and i was honored to introduce this bill in the senate with senators heller and feinstein. it passed in the senate but was held up in the house because of a procedural issue. this allowed gabby to reintroduce it in the house this week with congressman jeff flake. and yesterday, as we all bid gabby an emotional farewell, the house overwhelmingly passed it by a vote of 408-0. i commend the house leadership for working to make sure this important legislation passed as gabby's final legislative act before resigning. and i want to especially say how honored i am to have worked on this legislation with her. like all americans, i've watched in awe at gabby's courage and her remarkable grace. she inspires us all. she represents the best of our

nation. dr. martin luther king once said that "darkness cannot drive out darkness. only light can do that." gabby is truly a shining light to all who know her. the ultralight aircraft smuggling prevention act is a testament to gabby's commitment to securing our borders from illegal activity. a new trend in drug smuggling is to fly a one-person ultralight aircraft over the border to drop drugs. hundreds are flown across the southwest border each year. each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics, because ultralights are not categorized under existing law as aircraft by the federal aviation administration, they do not fall under the provisions of the tariff act of 1930. this means that a drug smuggler piloting an ultralight is subject to weaker criminal

penalties than one who uses a small plane. ultralight present a unique challenge for border patrol and prosecutors. our legislation will close any unintended loopholes. it will give our law enforcement and prosecutors the additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling. it will also add an attempt and -- contempt and conspiracy provision to the law. this enables police and prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. it gives prosecutors a new tool to go after the ground crews who aid pilots as well as those who pick up drugs that are being dropped off in the united stat states. this bill will also direct the department of defense, the department of homeland security to establish and cla and collabn

identifying the equipment technology for border detection to detect ultralights. the ultimate purpose of this legislation is to make our communities safer, and it is fitting that gabby from the very beginning has been so instrumental in making it happen. i also want to acknowledge the hard work of her staff who has worked on this bill tirelessly every day. peter ambler is one of her staff members that's been key in this. gabby's staff i know is very dedicated to her and -- and i know that gabby's perserverance to advance her legislative priorities during her recovery demonstrate what a good public service -- public servant she is. gabby, we know you will be back, but until then, we wish you and mark all the very best, and we thank you for your extraordinary service to our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. i addressed the senate recently on president obama's recess appointments, and he did this when the senate was not, in fact, in recess. i described at length why this was an outrageous and unconstitutional power grab. however, president obama's decision to bypass the constitutional advice and consent of the senate is not an

isolateed incident by the president. it is merely the latest escalation in a pattern of contempt for elected representatives of the american people and the constitutional separation of power. this pattern has become more apparent since the last election when public opinion turned against the direction that president obama was trying to take the country. when the president's 2009-2010 -- when the president's party in 2009 and 2010 had an overwhelming control of both houses of congress, he was able to pursue his agenda with only the slightest of lip service to the objections from congressional republicans because we were very much in the minority. and, of course, we feel

representing millions of americans whose views were represented by people in opposition to president obama's views. in 2009 and 2010, president obama could, in fact, govern more like a prime minister in a european parliament where the leader of the party in power dictates the policy to be rubber stamped by that parliament. now, since the 2010 election, that's no longer the case. there was a tremendous voter backlash against both the side of the aisle and substance of the president's agenda. the ground swell of americans became convinced that their government was out of touch, and they demanded to be heard. the president's party in the senate is now well below the supermajority necessary to pass legislation without consulting the minority party, and that's

the way it was intended for the senate to work. moreover, there is now a new majority in the house of representatives trying to chart a new course based on the concerns that so many voters expressed in the last election. rather than accept the message of the 2010 election and faced with a congress that is no longer a rubber stamp, the president has decided that he doesn't need congress at all. imagine that. in fact, he's even said so. in october, upset that congress would not pass his latest stimulus bill exactly as he proposed, the president launched a media campaign around the tag line -- quote, unquote -- "we can't wait for congress." under this banner, he has announced executive actions for everything from mortgage and student loans, summer jobs for youth and new fuel economy

standards. a president being frustrateed with congress is nothing new. we all know that from history. what's more remarkable is the notion that the president, however, can act independently of congress. where they won't act, i will, the president has said. article 1, section 1 of the constitution of the united states says -- quote -- "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives." end of quote. having had their rights violated by king george, our founding fathers intentionally put the power to make laws in the branch of government that is most directly related and accountable

to the citizenry of this country. under our constitution, the president's role is not to make policy unilaterally but to quote the constitution take care that the laws are faithfully executed. some might say that the whole we can't wait campaign is just harmless political rhetoric. it would be bad enough if the president were just kidding when he implies that he is usurping legislative power. the legislative powers vested in the duly elected representatives of the citizens of our 50 states. however, after his latest power grab, there can be no doubt that president obama is dead serious. it's not just political rhetoric. this disregard for the constitutional role of congress didn't start with president

obama's quote, unquote, we can't wait for congress campaign. an earlier indicator of actions to come was his controversial pumpkin of several new so-called czars. the president is well within his rights to choose advisors, we all agree to that. which is what these positions now termed czars were supposed to be, just as advisors. however, it became clear that many of president obama's new high-level czars like the climate czar, for instance, were involved in crafting regulations and other roles normally reserved for senate-confirmed officials. why? because then they could be called to the senate committees to respond and have us operate

our proper oversight funding. another example of president obama's disregard for congress is his administration's unilateral pursuit of climate change regulations. the house and senate have considered various proposals to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but these have proved very controversial and very harmful to the economy. when the alignment legislation backed by president obama could not achieve sufficient support to pass congress, the administration announced that it would go ahead anyway. while a supreme court ruling opened the door to that possibility, the fact that congress specifically did not authorize such regulations should have given the president pause. in a similar move, when the dream act was currently written was unable to secure sufficient support in congress to pass an immigration and customs

enforcement memoranda appeared calling for immigration laws to be enforced so as to bring about the same ends as the legislation that couldn't pass congress. congress also rejected the card check bill supported by president obama to eliminate secret ballot elections for union members. sure enough, the national labor relations board proposed a rule providing for snap elections which would achieve the same goals of giving -- thus giving union leaders an upper hand in union elections. the president's race to the top education program is another significant overreach. congress bears responsibility for writing a $5 billion check to the secretary of education in the first stimulus bill with minimal guidelines attached. however, the administration blew past even those broad guidelines

to implement an unprecedented federal intervention into state education policy. the resulting program offered the possibility of big grants to cash-strapped states, provided they first change state laws to implement specific policies favored by the secretary of education. most states like iowa implemented the secretary's preferred policies and applied for the funds, yet never saw a dime in return for changing our state laws. in a similar move, the president announced that he would grant waivers to states for relief of the requirements of no child left behind. the catch is that states will have to adopt key come componenf his education reform agenda in order to get such a waiver. this is despite the fact that congress is currently considering legislation to update the federal education policy and may not adopt all aspects of the president's

proposal. moreover, current law allows for waiving existing requirements on a case-by-case basis but does not authorize the administration to add new requirements in return. so far during my remarks, i have mostly focused on areas where the president has acted without authority from congress. on the other hand, when congress has passed legislation, the president doesn't entirely agree with, he has announced, while signing them into law, that he won't implement the parts that he doesn't like. during the 2008 campaign, -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. grassley: i thought we had until 1:00, or is that wrong? could i ask for the time up until the republican time is up at 1:00? the presiding officer: i don't -- there is no order about

the time. is there objection to the senator speaking until 1:00 p.m.? ms. stabenow: mr. chairman, just to ask how many more minutes -- i am going to speak for just a few minutes before the 1:00 starts. mr. grassley: i will not pursue it any more. i will put the rest of my statement in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i very much appreciate my friend from iowa. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i appreciate the courtesy. i know that there are a number of colleagues that will be speaking at 1:00, and i appreciate having the opportunity to say a few words prior to that. mr. president, i rise today to congratulate my state of michigan on its 175th anniversary of statehood. on thursday, january 26, 1837, president andrew jackson signed into law the bill granting michigan statehood.

the bill was surprisingly controversial. at the time that michigan and ohio had been embroiled in an argument called the toledo war. before michigan was granted statehood, it had to surrender its claim over toledo, but in exchange, we got the upper peninsula of michigan, one of the most beautiful places in the entire country, i would say in the entire world. so, mr. president, i think we won that trade. 24 years later, president lynn would exclaim thank god for michigan when michigan troops arrived to defend washington, d.c., during the civil war. around the turn of the century, the auto industry took off in michigan. henry ford paid the workers $5 a day to build the model t's so that they could afford to buy the cars that they made. that was viewed as revolutionary at the time. those workers not only created the middle class in this

country, and we are very proud that it started in michigan with our workers, but they made america an international superpower. during world war i michigan factories built boats and vehicles that turned the tide in europe. during world war ii michigan's role became even more important. auto plants were rapidly converted to military use. the nation's first freeways were built in michigan to connect our factories in detroit with those in other parts of the state. the iconic image of rosy the riveter saying we can do it was based on a real woman named rose monroe, who worked at the willow run factory in michigan. after the war, michigan experienced incredible growth, becoming the home of our american middle class. only california and florida saw

greater population growth than michigan in the postwar years. manufacturing took off across the state, and eventually across the country. farms saw greater increases in production with the invention of new machinery and the adoption of increased especialization. we built the mackinac bridge connecting our two biewfl peninsulas, an engineering mar val that remains one of the largest suspension bridges in the world. and of course motown records and all the wonderful musicians who have come since then. they gave the world some of the most, and i would say the most wonderful music and the best musicians that have ever lived. the last few years have been tough on all of us in michigan, but we've been through tough times before, and every time we have come back stronger than

ever. we may be 175 years old, but you wouldn't know it. our economy is growing stronger and more nimble than ever. great sacrifices have got us to this point as we've moved through great recessions and changes in a global economy. but i'm very, very proud of everyone in michigan that is working hard and bringing things back. our auto companies have made an incredible comeback. g.m. is once again the world's largest automaker. ford is investing billions of dollars in michigan plants. and chrysler is reminding the country that the very best cars and trucks are imported from detroit. and i am so grateful for all of the sacrifice and hard work of our workers that have helped get

our companies to this point. it was great to hear president obama talk so much about the future of michigan's economy in his state of the union speech. we're diversifying to support new technologies and new businesses. the president up vetoed -- invited a michigan worker, brian ribtterby who lost his job in the furniture business at age 55 and was able to get retrained and have a new job at wind turbine factory on the west side of the state. he said i'm proud to be working in the industry of the future. and that came because of a converted -- concerted effort of all of us working together not only to help general motors and chrysler but to focus on a manufacturing strategy of the future to make things in america. the president talked about our leadership in clean energy manufacturing and advanced battery technology.

in fact, michigan is now number one in new clean energy patents. we're doing so much in innovation in fact, that the u.s. patent and trade office is opening a new office in detroit in july, the first satellite office in the country. and i'm proud to have authored the provision to name it the elijah mccoy patent office after an african-american inventor whose high-quality products and innovations gave rise to the expression is that the real mccoy. on michigan's 5th -- 175th anniversary there are so many reasons i'm proud to represent our beautiful great lakes state, from our incredible waters to our tradition of manufacturing to our great diversity in agriculture, we make things and grow things in michigan.

we don't have a middle class in this country, we don't have an economy unless we do just that, and michigan is once again leading the way. but i'm most honored to serve the great people of michigan who are, without a doubt, the toughest, the friendliest, the hardest working people in the country. the author john steinbeck once wrote of a trip he took to michigan. he said it seemed to me that the earth ways generous and outgoing here in the heartland, and perhaps its people took a cue from it, and in fact, our people have. so today as we celebrate michigan's 175th birthday, we have an incredible history to be proud of, an incredible future to look forward to. thank you, madam president. a senator: is, madam president. the presiding officer: the

senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: representing a state that is coming up on our 350th anniversary i'm delighted to salute the great state of michigan on its 175th anniversary. i rise today to note the anniversary of an unfortunate event that is undermining the very core of our cherished democracy. this past saturday marked the two-year anniversary of the supreme court's disastrous 5-4 decision in a case called citizens united versus the federal election commission. with that feat of judicial activism, the conservative bloc of the supreme court gnawed a hole in the dike protecting our elections' integrity, and allowed unlimited anonymous corporate money to flood into our elections.

senator mccain recently called this -- quote -- "one of the worst decisions in history." senator schumer said at the time -- quote -- "one thing is clear, the conservative bloc of the supreme court has predetermined the outcome of the next election. the winners will be the corporations." it's no secret around here that big corporate interests long have had oversized influence in the legislative and executive branches, but citizens united supersizes that influence so that it threatens to overrun our elections. here's how my home state newspaper, "the providence journal" explained it. the ruling will mean that more than ever big spending economic interests will determine who gets elected. more money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. free speech for most individuals will suffer because their voices will count for even less than they do now.

they will simply be drowned out by the big money. this election year already confirms those fears. senator mccain noted earlier this month, i'll quote him between, "i predicted when the united states supreme court with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics struck down the mccain-feingold finance law there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted for and this is exactly what is happening. i predict in the future there will be scandals because there is too much money rashing around political campaigns now that nobody knows where it came from and nobody knows where it's going." senator mccain got it right. look at iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina. this election cycle has been the coming-out party for the superp.a.c.'s, the so-called evil twins of candidates'

campaigns. why evil twins? unlike candidates' campaigns, super p.a.c.s can accept unlimited cash. unlike campaigns, super p.a.c.'s can hide the identity of who is funding them until long after the voting is over. unlike candidates' campaigns, super p.a.c.'s can run vicious and misleading advertisements without anyone being accountable to the voters. super p.a.c.'s supposedly can't coordinate their activities with the candidates' campaigns, but we all know this is pure fiction. in practice, they're run by close confederates of the candidates, fueled by the same donors, and acting in perfect harmony with the campaigns. and it's out of control. through the date of the new hampshire primary, super p.a.c.'s backing the republican candidates spent over $14 million, far more than the candidates' campaigns did themselves.

here is the problem: corporations are not people. by refusing to acknowledge this, the citizens united opinion has undermined the integrity of our democracy allowing unlimited corporate money to drown out ordinary citizens' voices. and this isn't some unfortunate side effect of a long-standing right enshrined in our constitution. this is new and this is novel. the founders certainly did not consider corporations to be citizens of our democracy. corporations are not even mentioned in the constitution once. indeed, private business corporations were actually rare at our nation's founding. as justice stevens noted in his dissent in citizens united, it is implausible that the framers believed the freedom of speech would extend to -- would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it

would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections. so there is really no case to support the citizens united decision if you're wan originalist. -- an originalist. federal laws have prestricted spending since 1907. the principle that a corporation is not allowed to spend unlimited dollars to influence political campaigns is a long established cornerstone from teddy roosevelt a senators ago to senators mccain and ryan gold who won that bruising battle for the bipartisan reform act. citizens united overturned not just all that legislation but a long line of judicial decisions upholding those restrictions on corporate cash in elections. so there's no case here based on

precedent, either. justice stevens ♪ed -- noted that i'll quote him again, the only relevant thing that has changed since those prior precedents that were overviewld the composition of this court." the conservatives got a majority of five and they ran with it. judicial activism, pure, plain, and simple. the activism appears pretty nakedly in the majority's findings of fact. just for starters, a supreme court is not supposed to make findings of fact. its role is to review the factual record presented to it and interpret the law but the supreme court's conservative bloc nevertheless made findings of fact in citizens united. here is one: we now conclude that independent expenditures including those made by corporations do not give rise to

corruption or the appearance of corruption. they just declared that to be true. really? so a company comes in, drops a couple of million dollars to smear one candidate on behalf of the other in a closely contested race, tips the election and you don't think that that other candidates they helped is in that company's pocket? please. and say a year later that company coms back and it sits down quietly with the congressman and it says you remember that ad we ran smearing your opponent last year that helped you win the election? well, here is one we're going to run dependence you through a different phony shell organization, unless you vote with us on this bill. no possibility of corruption or the appearance of corruption? please. it is ludicrous, it is patently

false. here's another finding of fact by this bloc of judges. the appearance of influence or access furthermore will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. if all you're doing is listening to the corporations, people are going to be fine with that. please. anyone in politics knows how phony that statement is. there are hundreds of thousands of pages of findings to the contrary in the records of the previous supreme court decisions that were overturned and from legislative hearings. here's what the senate said a hundred years ago speaking about corporate money in elections. the evils of the use of this money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. it is in the interest of good government and calculated to

promote purity in the selection of public officials. this finding of the senate was magically overturned by the citizens united five. other courts are having trouble swallowing this phony fact finding. the montana supreme court recently rejected this false premise that underlies citizens united. here is what they said: clearly the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens. now that is true. but the conservative justices comprising the citizens united 5 had to make these unsupported findings a fact. they are the analytical linchpin of the citizens united decision, without the pretense that corporate money could never

corrupt or appear to corrupt elections, the rest of their analysis falls to pieces, and they would never have been able to open the floodgates for the big corporations. may i have an additional two minutes, please? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: so they had to make these findings, even though the findings were contrary to precedent, contrary to common sense, contrary to fact. americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the influence of unlimited anonymous corporate cash in our elections. rhode islander charles -- i'll just use his first name -- in little compton wrote to me "it is wrong that someone who shouts louder or further in this instance solely because they have more money should drown out another person. corporations have no problems getting their views aired." hope whitney in bristol wrote to me, just the idea that a corporation is considered an individual in regards to politics goes against everything american, to me.

they have become the emperors, as they have the financial ability to be heard everywhere. i'd be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do not agree with their political representation. as elizabeth in wakefield, rhode island, wrote, big business should not control our elections. it is bad enough that they deeply influence our politicians through lobbyists. madam president, rhode islanders, like americans across the country, have had enough. in 2010, we came within one vote in this chamber of passing the disclose act, which would have at least kept the corporate cash from flooding our elections anonomously. this year let's redouble our efforts to limit the damage done by citizens united. we must, if we're to preserve democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people from this tide of unlimited, unaccountable and anonymous corporate money polluting our elections. thank you, madam chair. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. a senator: madam president, i rise today to talk about one of the worst supreme court decisions in the history of the court. mr. frank:two years ago the supreme court handed down the decision in citizens united. i'd like to take a few minutes this afternoon to tell you about the practical impact of this decision, how it threatens our democracy and why we need to do something about it. let me start with the punch line. in citizens united, the supreme court ruled for the first time that corporations are guaranteed the same free speech rights as real people to influence elections. i didn't say it was a funny punch line. the court had previously held that money or campaign contributions are speech, so

functional that means that corporations are now able to spend as much money as they want whenever they want in any election in this country. let me tell you how. you may have heard a lot about pacs. pac is short for political action committee, and it is an entity that is separate from a campaign that can run political ads on issues or support or oppose a candidate. they can also give a limited amount of money directly to campaigns. the idea behind them is that if a number of citizens share views on an issue, say, the environment, they can pool their resources, make their views known and influence an election. they can run ads to call for the election of a candidate that supports those shared beliefs. but a pac cannot coordinate with that candidate's campaign.

it's not supposed to be an extension of that campaign. prior to citizens united, corporations could get involved in the political process, but there were special protections in place. they couldn't use their money to make a direct contribution to a campaign, and they couldn't buy political ads to directly influence elections. instead they had to give money to a pac, and how much they could give was very tightly restricted. corporations could only use their treasury funds to pay, set up and administer a pac, and could not use any money to expressly advocated for the election or defeat of any candidate. and their executives, like all other individuals, could only write checks of up to $5,000 to these pacs. citizens united began the process of unraveling these protections when it found that

companies could give unlimited money to pacs for the purposes of running ads directly advocating for or against a candidate. this kind of activity is called independent expenditures. there is one line from the supreme court's opinion that i think is worth sharing with you, as senator whitehouse did as well, because it highlights for me and for him just how absurd the thinking of the court was on this case. it said -- quote -- "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." unquote. my emphasis added. this one line that is so flawed and so out of touch with reality is what has spawned the complete

unraveling of our campaign finance system, and it has opened the floodgates for political spending. a subsequent case, free speech now.org v. f.e.c., finished what united corporations started by finding that the contribution caps, found them to be unconstitutional. the combination of these two court cases is what gave rise to what is now known as a superpac. as a result, many regular pacs now, have now given way to these super pacs. what does this mean in practice? it means that corporations can now give an unlimited amount of funds directly from their general treasuries to pacs and that those funds could be used to run ads supporting a candidate and run attack ads

against their opponents. and because the cap on contributions to pacs was eliminated for individuals as well, now c.e.o.'s and other super wealthy individuals can write multimillion dollar checks to influence elections. this entirely undermines the restrictions that were put in place on how much an individual or corporation can give to a candidate running for office. just give however much you want to the candidate's super pac. and they buy ads that support the candidate's election or what we've seen a lot of lately, they run negative ads that smear another candidate. a superpac is not a new legal entity. it's just a pac that started to bundle together these unlimited corporation donations with unlimited donations from super

rich individuals with the goal of supporting or defeating certain candidates. lets be clear, these super pacs aren't about issues. they're about campaigning for candidates, even though they ostensibly can't coordinate with the official campaign. and legally, a candidate can't even force them to stop. and so, many people have noted in this new political reality, it would be unilateral disarmament and ultimately electoral defeat for elected officials to run away from super pacs. that's why the system needs to be changed. but it gets even worse. in a postcitizens united world, you often can't even find out where the money is coming from. pacs and super pacs have to disclose several times a year where they get their money from, but companies often don't want you to know that they're giving

lots of money to elect or defeat someone, so they do something that looks like money laundering, except that it's legal. they might create and give money to a shell corporation, which in turn donates to a super pac. when you look at the records for the super pac, which are published only quarterly, you'll see the shell corporation but not the original source of the money. a company might give money to one shell corporation which in turn could give money to another pac and so on until it finally reaches the ultimate super pac. and with records published so infrequently, it's nearly impossible to trace back to the original corporation. and to make matters even worse, many super pacs have been able to get permission from the federal election commission to delay their disclosure savings

rendering all of the supposed disclosures completely useless. so back to the punch line. corporations can now spend an unlimited sum of money to buy elections, and the american people generally won't even know about it. corporations and super-wealthy individuals no longer have to play by any sensible rules when it comes to the checks they write for campaigns. citizens united ushered in the wild, wild west of political spending, but don't take my word for it. let's look at some of the numbers. in the 2010 election, outside groups spent over $280 million on political ads and other campaign expenses. this is more than double the amount spent by outside groups in 2008, before the decision. and it's more than five times the amount spent by these groups in 2006. the chamber of commerce alone

spent more than $32 million on campaigns in 2010, which is more than any other single outside group and it's nearly double the amount it spent in 2008. outside groups spent more on political advertising in 2010 than the official democratic and republican party committees. but that was 2010, when corporations and the super-wealthy were just beginning to understand the utility of this amazingly misguided decision. the last several months have given us example after example of what big money can do to control the political process. i may not agree with the views of all of the republican primary candidates, or any of them, for that matter. some of their views maybe, but not as a whole. but i do believe that everyone deserves a fair shake when they

run for office. and a fair election is just not possible when corporations and wealthy individuals can swoop in and drown out the voices of hundreds of thousands of americans with a single fat check. madam president, may i have a few more minutes, five more minutes, four more minutes? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. frank:thank you. former spao*ebg newt gingrich -- former speaker newt gingrich pulled off a surprise win in south carolina but i suspect it wouldn't have happened if mr. gingrich's superpac hadn't received a $5 million check from one guy -- a multibillionaire from las vegas. the super pac, also known as the group "winning our future" used the money to pay for attack ads against former governor mitt romney. just a few days ago it was announced that the wife of the

same billionaire wrote another $5 million check to mr. gingrich's super pac to help him out in florida. now i wish i could offer an example of a company writing a similar check, but as i mentioned before, there is just no way of knowing if they did or didn't because they don't have to disclose it, and they can take steps to hide it. but this example of two $5 million checks from one couple who just happened to be willing to talk about their donations should show just how big we're talking. this is very, very big money, and it is happening now. to be fair, mr. romney has his own super pac called "restore our future." it is currently outspending every other pac in florida by 20 to 1. i wish i could tell you how this is possible, but the first disclosure statement from this campaign season isn't out until the end of this month.

and even then it will be hard to trace back individual companies or people through all the shell corporations and other pacs. and this is only the beginning. hold on to your hats. over the next ten months i predict we will not just see a flood, but we will see a tidal wave of political spending by corporations and the wealthiest of the wealthiest americans. the vast majority of whom are also running these corporations? it means it'll be hard for a $25 individual contribution to make any impact when compared to a single $5 million check from the superwealthy and superself-interested individual. your voice and the voice of millions of americans like you will be overwhelmed by the voice of a corporation or uberwealthy individual that can write multimillion-dollar checks without blinking an eye. all of this is going to happen

under a shroud of secrecy. we may not know who is bankrolling these groups but we do know who is hurt by them. and it is all of us -- democrats and republicans alike. and no matter where your ideology falls or what political party you associate with, i think you should agree with me that this process just isn't fair. this isn't right, and it's something that we need to change. congress tried to do something about this over -- a little over a year ago when we took up chuck schumer's disclose act. despite overwhelming public support for disclosure laws, this tremendous piece of legislation did not pass. it failed the senate by one vote. i'm sad to say that every democrat voted for it and every republican voted against it. that's a very disappointing outcome because this is an issue that affects candidates of both parties. it's one we should all be able to get behind.

we are all hurt by corporations that can write enormous checks to their favorite politicians and we are all hurt when wealthy individuals can do nate to candidates. this is a matter of transparency and accountability and fairness which should cut across the entire political spectrum. t-although we may not agree on everything, i do think we can all agree that we need to do more to bring greater transparency to the election process. a number of my republican colleagues agree with me and had agreed for years before the supreme court further unratify led restrictions on -- unraveled restrictions on corporation spending. i'll read one of the quotes, a good friend of mine, jeff sessions, has said "i don't think it when -- i don't like it when pa large source of money

sought there funding and is unaccount baling. to the extent we can, i tend to favor disclosure." i could go for minute upon minute upon minute reading these quotes. i won't in interest of time. so this is a problem that we all need to recognize. we all need to deal with. republican presidential candidates are dealing with it now, but soon it'll be the democrats s. turn. so i teamed up with a number of my colleagues, many of whom will be speaking today to see that congress can take up legislation where we disclose, where we have greater transparency for this out-of-control spending. we're going to work hard to bring our republican colleagues to the table and get their agreement on a path forward. disclosure will not fix all the evils of citizens unit united, t certainly will be a step forward. i hope my completion will join with us in this effort and i

hope to be back on the floor many times. i thank you for your indulgence, madam president, because i know that i've run out of time and i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i want to thank the senator from minnesota. as he was eloquently telling you, last saturday was the two-year anniversary of the citizens united supreme court decision which caused our democracy to take a giant step back from the values that we hold dear in this country. it was a ruling that overturned decades of campaign finance law and policy, allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of their money influencing our democracy, and blew the door wide open for foreign corporations to spend their money on elections right mare in the united states. madam president, that disastrous decision opened up loopholes in our campaign finance laws big

enough for the biggest corporations and wealthiest americans to drive truckloads of anonymous money right through. as we have seen over the last two years, that is exactly what they have done. tens of millions of dollars have flooded our electoral process. no transparency, no accountability, no way for the american people to know where it's coming from or who would benefit from th the policies beg advocated for. madam president, this is wrong. it's not the way elections in america are supposed to work. we are a country that believes very strongly that every voice deserves to be heard. you have a good idea, you can go out and talk about it. if your fellow citizens agree with you, they can stand with you, they can tell their friends and their neighbors and vote for you or in support of the issue. that's one of the foundations of our great democracy. today it's being subverted. the citizens united ruling has given special interest groups

and the wealthiest americans a giant megaphone to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens across america, to spend unlimited money and do it with no transparency, no accountability. madam president, this is a personal issue for me. when i first ran for the senate back in 1992 i was a longhot candidate. some ideas and a group of amazing and passionate volunteers by my side. those volunteers cared deeply about making sure the voices of average washington state families were being represented. they made phone calls. they went door to door. they talked to families across my state hue wanted more -- who wanted more from their government. we ended up winning that grass-roots campaign because the people's voices were heard loud and clear. but to be honest, i don't think it would have been possible if corporations and special interests had been able to drown out their voices with a barrage of anonymous, negative ads.

now, madam president, my story is not unique. in every election across the country, ordinary citizens make the decision to get involved in the political process. they lace up their shoes and hit the streets and make the case to their fellow citizens. they ask their friends and their neighbors for financial support to help them spread their ideas, and they publicly -- publicly -- release the names and contributions of everyone who supports their campaign. these men and women come from all different walks of life, and they each have their own reasons for running. but for the most of our nation's history, they had a shot. they could compete. ordinary americans who wanted to get involved in public service to improve their community or their state or their nation -- they could do that because their voice could be heard. but, madam president, if citizens united is allowed to stand, these americans are going to be drowned out and beaten

down by the onslaught of unlimited and anonymous money special interests can throw into races to support the candidates who agree with them. the candidates who will be good for their bottom line and who won't threaten the loopholes and subsidies or tax breaks that their financial backers profit from. this is wrong. it needs to end. last session i was proud to support legislation, the disclose act, that would shine a bright spotlight on this process and force special interest groups and c.e.o.'s to take responsibility for the ads they put on the air waves, the same way candidates do. that bill would have strengthened overall disclosure requirements for groups who are attempting to sway our elections. it would have banned foreign corporations and special interest groups from spending in u.s. elections, made sure corporations are not hiding their election spending from their shareholders, limited

election spending by government contractors to make sure taxpayer funding is never used to influence an election, and it would have banned coordination between candidates and outside groups on advertising so corporations and special interest groups can never sponsor a candidate. madam president, that bill was blocked here on the senate floor last session. but we cannot give up. we need to overturn citizens united and hand our democracy back to our citizens. anyone who believes special interest groups and big corporations shouldn't be able to spend unlimited money influencing our elections without any accountability or any transparency should support this effort. anyone who believes that foreign entities should have no right to influence u.s. elections should stand by our side. and anyone who agrees with justice brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant should

drop their opposition to this and work with us to get this done. madam president, throughout the history of our great nation, ordinary citizens have had a strong voice in our electoral process. the citizens united decision is a threat to that critical foundation of our democracy, and two years later it's clearer than ever we cannot allow it to stand. so i thank all of our colleagues who are speaking out here on this floor and vow to continue to work with us to right this wrong. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

bloom bloom thank yoconnecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. we do mark the two-year anniversary of the supreme court's nominateous and misguided decision -- momentous and misguided decision in citizens united. that decision strikes at the core of democratic ideals and principles, not just because it opens the floodgates for money that can drown out the voices of millions of oardz americans in the political process but also demonstrates the results of judicial activism at its worst. in that case, the court by a 5-4 margin held that corporations have a first amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money in the service of political candidates. and that those rights can't be

abridged by placing limits on their independent spending for political purposes. this decision not only expanded the ability of wealthy individuals and large corporations to flood out the voices of millions of ordinary americans, it also reversed nearly a century of existing law and struck down a validly approved -- by this congress validly approved, bipartisan campaign reform act approved in 2002. the purpt that have act was to limit the -- the purpose of that act was to limit the influence of corrosive money on our political process that has been discussed and denounced by members of this body again and again and again and by the president of the united states

as recently as a couple of nights ago. this decision, in my view, was wrong as a matter of law, as well as policy. it enables unlimited, anonymous money to be contributed in support or opposition to candidates. it allows the wealthy and powerful to have a disproportionate voice in the most important and fundamental aspect of our democracy, a free and fair election that counts everyone's vote equally. the shock waves of that decision, citizens united, are reverreverberating now through r political system. we can see them every day literally in the ads that appear on tv, in major markets, in the primary states and throughout the country that could and would

-- might as well be in the voices of the candidates themselves. outside groups spent four times as much money in the 2010 midterms as in the 2006 midterms, nearly $300 million. nearly half of the money spent in the 2010 elections was spent by just 10 groups. outside spending per race tilted in favor of the winning candidate in 60 of the 75 contests last year where power changed hands. this impact is visible and tangible, undeniable in our political process. it is right before us, as visible as the desks and people in this chamber. and that impact can be expected to grow dramatically in 2012, as

spending in the presidential years is typically much higher than in the midterm elections. according to opensecrets.org which traction political spending, as of today, 296 groups organized as superpacs have already reported spending nearly $41 million on the upcoming elections. these superpacs are banned from explicitly coordinating with the candidate they support, but they are operated and controlled by supporters, many of them former staff members. their collaboration and confederacy are no less impact because of that rule barring explicit coordination. we must act to limit the destructionive effects of citizens uknittedded before it permanently alters the nature of

our political system, undermining it forever and eviscerating the fundamental rights and freedoms that are protected by our constitution. i'm a strong proponent of legislative proposals to force corporations and individuals to disclose their enormous donations and i ask that the quorum call be suspended dhiewrs to the public. a l -- and expenditures to the public. the supreme court's opinion in citizens united naively argued that voters could redsly learn the identities of companies behind these corporate funded political advertisements, but the fact of the matter is otherwise. nearly half of the $300 million spent by outside groups in 2006 came from groups that did not disclose their funding sources. we must pass disclosure legislation immediatelily to at

least -- immediately to at least allow sun shane to rein in the -- sunshine to rein in the worst excesses of this legislation in order to give ordinary americans the knowledge they need so that disclosure protects their freedom. but i also believe that we need to go further, and that's why i'm a cosponsor of the constitutional amendment that would reverse this decision. the, senate joint resolution -- the amendment, senate joint resolution 29, would reiterate what we all believe the law to be before citizens united. that resolution clarifies, and the amendment would do so, that congress does, indeed, have the power -- and i quote -- "to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalence with respect to federal elections." and that -- in that, states have the authority with regard to state elections to do the same.

i know that amending the constitution isn't easy and supporting a proposed amendment is not something i do lightly, but, unfortunately, the supreme court has clearly demonstrated that it will permit unchecked corporate power over elections and the task is then for congress and the states and the people to restrain such spending and thereby rein in the supreme court. many have seen citizens united as an expression of the united states supreme court's judicial activism in favor of well-funded and well-lawyered corporations often at the expense of vulnerable americans, and there is support for that view of the supreme court's trend in decisions. in at&t v. conceptione, it expanded the ability of companies to force consumers into secretive binding arbitration agreements.

in wal-mart v. dukes, it restricted the ability of similarly situated persons, including female employees who faced discrimination in the workplace to ban together and seek redress against a powerful company. in pleva v. mensing, a case involving a woman who sustained injuries from a drug company's failure to properly disclose the risks of a generic drug, the court sided with the drug company, holding that a generic drug company is not liable under state law for failing to notify the f.d.a. or the consumer about newly discovered risks of the drug. in sorel v.i.m.s. health, the court overturned a vermont law intended to prevent improper and invasive practices of drug companies tracking doctors' prescriptions to patients. and just two weeks ago in compucredit v. greenwood, the court halted a class action

lawsuit by consumers who signed up for a credit card marketed to individuals with poor credit histories. each of these decisions, and others, has been interpreted as part of a pattern that led the senate judiciary committee to hold a hearing a few months ago entitled "barriers to justice and accountability: how the supreme court recent rulings will affect corporate behavior." but more important than that perception and the appearance of that favoritism in judicial activism is the activism itself, the potential overreaching that undermines the faith and confidence of people in the courts. and citizens united exemplifies judicial activism at its worst. people want limits on the corrosive and corrupting influence of money. they want restraints on the power of corporations and

wealthy individuals to fund -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. a senator: may i have two more minutes? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: in closing, i would just say that people spoke through their legislature. the judiciary struck down a measure through which the people spoke to place those limits on the ability of corporations to shape results, and the judiciary now should be overturned through constitutional amendments that restores the democratic voice of the people as a whole. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: thank you, madam president. my colleagues and i come here today to speak out against the hijacking of american democracy by powerful special interests. mr. merkley: it is two years ago this last saturday that the

supreme court found in citizens united that unlimited secret funding of campaigns in america is just fine. now, this is not an opinion shared by americans who understand that secret donations corrupt the electoral process. it's not an opinion shared by virtually everyone who serves in this body who has come to the floor and talked about transparency and accountability. and certainly it is a viewpoint that would be very strange to the authors of the constitution. what are those first beautiful three words of the constitution? are they "we, the powerful"? are they, "we, the special interests"? no, they're not. those three words are, "we, the people," and virtually every schoolchild in america could tell you that.

"we, the people" -- that is what american democracy is all about. the entire constitution is written for the prosperity and success, for the rights of the citizens of the united states of america. indeed, it was president lincoln who captured the genius of american democracy in this phrase, "a government of the people, a government by the people, for the people." citizens united is the opposite. secret, unlimited donations are an instrument of the powerful. secret, unlimited donations are an instrument of very large companies. now, our constitution honors free speech. the first amendment is about free speech. it recognizes how important it is that citizens are able to openly debate the merits of candidates and the merits of ideas. but the essence of the first

amendment is that competing voices must be heard and measured against each other in a marketplace of ideas. but that falls apart under citizens united. under citizens united, the torrent of cash amounts to the equivalent of a stadium sound system drowning out the voice of the people. let me give you an example of what i'm talking about. if you were to take a very successful company in 2008 -- so i'll just choose one, exxon, a very profitable company. if it had spent 3% of its net profits in 2008, that money would have been equal to the money spent by all americans on the presidential campaign. one company, one booed room boae proposal, spending 300%, only 300 of the net profit,

equivalent to all the money spent by all the rest of america on a presidential election. that completely corrupts the concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. now, in 2012, we're seeing the results. i'm going to put up a chart. take a little comparison here. we see that spending in 2008 at this point in the campaign was about $23 million. about half of that, where these blue arrows come to, was coming from independent expenditures. the other half was coming from candidates and parties. well, here we are four years later, post-citizens united. look down here and you'll see the very small amount that comes from candidates and parties. and you'll see this enormous chart of the funding coming from

independent parties. 95% up to this point coming from independent parties. well, the number went from 26 to 45 and the amount spent through the ordinary system has dropped massively. this is the special interest impact on american elections. this is the impact of the powerful on american elections. now, let's just look at the campaign to date for the presidency. in the iowa caucuses, newt gingrich started to rise to the top of the polls but then super pacs supporting mitt romney weighed in. they came to town and they spent a huge amount of money. and when caucus night came, gingrich lost, and he lost bad badly. and newt gingrich commented -- quote -- "for a state this siz size" -- referring to iowa -- "to spend that number of dollars on negative ads aimed at one candidate is pretty amazing."

it's amazing and it's effective. and its story changes when newt gingrich had a super pac of his own. that came in with $5 million in south carolina. and instead of being defeated, he won. the pattern is clear. the message is clear. the vast expenditures of secret powerful money make an enormous difference in who wins elections. why is this corrupting? every person on this floor, every one of us sees that pattern. everyone running across this country sees that pattern. it means when the powerful come to an individual and say, "you're going to run, this is my position, won't you back it?" and they know that that company can put millions into their race, that corrupts the process. when a bill is on the floor of this chamber and someone knows that the person backing that bill can spend millions of dollars in an upcoming race, that corrupts this process.

that is not what american democracy is all about. so we must change that. we must have full disclosure of donors. we must have timely disclosure of donors, and we must have commonsense limitations on how money is raised and how it is spent. and that's why with others, i have joined to back senator tom udall's constitutional amendment that makes it very clear that that's exactly what can be done. oh, this doesn't constrain free speech. this makes free speech work as designed in the constitution for the citizens in a government by and for the people. thank you, mr. president -- madam president. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i commend my colleague from oregon for his fine statement -- i would be happy to yield to the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak immediately after senator wyden for no more than five minutes.

the presiding officer: is there objection? die hear objection? -- i do hear objection? hearing no objection. mr. wyden: madam president, i thank the senator from new york for his courtesy. and i, too, will be brief. madam president, it is an extraordinary honor to represent oregon in the united states senate. and having this special privilege, i've tried to make the lodestar of my service transparency and accountability. it's why i worked with the distinguished senator from missouri, senator mccaskill, to end secret holds here in the united states senate, why i've had more than 600 open town meetings, why we take legislative drafts and put them on-line so that citizens can comment wherever possible. it's all about transparency and accountability, mr. president. and today's campaign finance system is neither.

it's not transparent. it's not possible for americans to see who is giving what sum to what particular candidate, and there's no accountability. certainly no accountability in the sense that when people go to the polls in vermont or new hampshire or new york or anywhere else, people know who's given a donation so that they can factor that into their political judgments. and with t -- with the explosion of mass comeed, the tradition of negative campaigning through pamphleteers and partisans has just grown and grown, to the point where the typical voter just can't find a way to avoid the flood of half-truths and out-right falsehoods, and it becomes even harder to send the message that voters want, and that is we have made our choice because we have full and complete information.

now, all of this was getting worse until the congress came together to take two steps, mr. president. the first was congress enacted regulation of the independent expenditures and eliminated the so-called soft corporate money that had begun to overwhelm the process. the second step, mr. president, and i want to thank senator collins from maine for working with me on this is we passed what's called stand by your ad. this is the law that requires candidates who support political ads to take individual responsibility for their ads and state in the ads that they approved this message. i also want to thank senator schumer who has been a champion of this kind of accountability for years and years. so that's where we were until the united states supreme court's decision in citizens united drove the system right back into the mud. through this decision, the supreme court has seen fit to create what amounts to a new

route for massive sums of unreported, unaccountable and unacceptable spending to drown out responsible discourse. in my view, this decision degrades our democracy and creates the appearance that american government is simply up for sale to the highest bidders. the decision by the 5-4 majority on the supreme court overturned almost a century of precedent and undermined the intent of the founders. the decision in my view reflects a lack of understanding about our political process and an inability to see the corrosive effect of massive and hidden expenditures. justice kennedy specifically said, and i quote -- "we now conclude the independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." so in effect, it was the opinion of the court that if disney or

comcast or british petroleum spent $20 million in an otherwise $10 million senate race advocating for one candidate, that newly elected senator would not even have the appearance, the appearance of working in their corporate interests instead of the public interests. in my view, that kind of reasoning does not pass the smell test. this is the sort of decision that ought to be left to the branch of government whose constituents understand not just the theory but the reality of elections. it's incumbent on the congress whose members do understand the electric -- electoral system to begin the process of restoring balance to the mechanisms of democracy, and this in my view needs to be done before our elections are entirely overrun by shadowy interests, warring unchecked and using the political system and american voters as pawns. my final point, mr. president, is i do not reach this judgment

lightly. i believe constitutional amendments ought to be reserved for those situations when the delicate balance set up by the founders has been upset by time, by circumstance, or in this case a sudden and ill-considered change in the jurisprudence that governs our system. that is the situation we face today, and it is why i have decided to add my name to the sponsors of this amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to again call for increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures so that the american people are informed about who is spending in our elections. i want to thank my colleagues both from oregon, senator wyden and senator merkley, for their good remarks on this issue as well as many of the others who have spoken.

now, this week marks the second anniversary of the supreme court's appalling decision in citizens united in which chief justice roberts and his cohort of activist judges overturned a century of legal precedent and created a flood of special interest group money spending -- sending money coursing through the veins of american elections. it is my view that this decision has done more to poison our politics than most any other in recent times. in fact, some have argued that this is the worst decision the supreme court has made since plessey versus ferguson, and i have a great delve sympathy with that argument. the court's decision created a loophole which allowed entities to create groups to serve as a conduit to anonymously funnel money and mislead the public about their true motives. the creation has also -- the

decision has also led to the creation of super packs. super p.a.c.'s are not only able to receive contributions and spent money at unprecedented levels, they are able to do so without accountability, working under the protected shadow of anonymity. so as a result, a multimillionaire individual, corporation, labor union could spend a million dollars, $5 million, $10 million against a candidate because they didn't like her stand on the environment, but all the ads would talk about would be, say, gay marriage, and no one would know where the ads came from. what the decision does, mr. president, is make our people feel more and more distant to our politics and our government, and that is corrosive for any democracy. it is just appalling what has happened since this decision, and i sometimes wonder what our

supreme court justices are thinking as they watch it happen. can they hide up in the ivory tower and say well, this is the first amendment at work? they know better than anybody that no amendment is absolute. they know you can't scream fire falsely in a crowded theater. hethey know we have liable laws and child pornography laws and other kinds of laws that balance the needs of the first amendment with other societal needs. one of the foremost needs of our society is for a fair, functioning democracy where there is some semblance of equality that each person that votes has about the same weight in the system. we know that money has counterbalanced that fundamental fairness, but never has the balance been so put out of whack by this decision. and this decision is just something that it's hard to

believe our supreme court justices, whatever their ideology, went for. i hope some of them might be saying attention here. to be honest with you, mr. president, i sat behind the supreme court justices of the state of the union. i was so tempted to talk to them about this, but i wasn't sure if that was appropriate protocol, but i hope they're listening today. i hope particularly justice kennedy, who is a swing vote and wrote the majority decision will listen to what we are saying because what he is doing is undoing our democracy. it's that fundamental. in short, the citizens united decision represents one of the most corrosive and destructive changes in law that has occurred in recent memory. democracy is already struggling to stay afloat in a sea of powerful special interests, and this decision is an anchor around its neck. in my judgment, there is no more

important step we can take to ensure america's continued greatness than to fight back about this deeply flawed decision, allowing anonymous special interests from subverting democracy. the need for reform is urgent. last congress, i sponsored the disclose act to foster effective disclosure, and i pledge my continuing commitment to fight for disclosure legislation this congress. the disclose act failed to get cloture by one vote, and i hope -- and i would hope that the level of unmitigateed spending in the republican primary has changed the mind of opponents. as we have seen, we now have a system where a single person can change the course of election. that's a system more like monarchy than democracy. and this is not a partisan issue. there are super p.a.c.'s and other kinds of anonymous giving on both sides. in fact, two of the leading

candidates for the republican presidential nomination called super p.a.c.'s -- quote -- "totally irresponsible, totally secret" and -- quote -- "a disaster that makes a mockery out of our political campaign season." that wasn't chuck schumer or jean shah haitian or bernie sanders speaking -- or jeanne had a halloween or bernie sanders. one came from newt gingrich and one came from mitt romney. disclosure will reveal at least the true identity of our organizations, and as one of our predecessor justices said -- i believe it was louis d. brandeis, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. people will not have as malicious, as pernicious, as false ads if they have to disclose who they are. plain and simple. but if you can hide behind a

shroud of secrecy and put unlimited money into these campaigns as the supreme court decision allows, we're not going to change it because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle thus far -- we haven't changed it because our colleagues are even against disclosure which of course is allowed by the law, the american democracy gets weaker. even eight of the nine justices in the activist overreaching decision of citizens united say the american people deserve meaningful disclosure. that makes the decision even more galling because they didn't require disclosure or limit what they did in light of the fact that we don't have disclosure as they wrote it. the court found, though, that there was strong governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related funding. in conclusion, we cannot afford

to be complacent while our democracy is under attack. the effect of the court's decision is clear. the flood of secret money has begun and is cascading through our system, and the american people need us to act. spending by special interest groups must be checked, and the very least we can do is demand that these groups step into the light and identify themselves. the citizens united decision is a poison coursing through our body politics, and disclosure is the antidote. mr. president, i yield the floor, and if mr. coats is not here and with permission of the minority, i would ask unanimous consent that senator -- the senator from new hampshire be allowed to proceed immediately after me. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, the senator from new hampshire.

mrs. shaheen: thank you very much, mr. president, and thank you to senator schumer and to all of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to talk about the critical nature of spending in our campaigns. i'm pleased to join them today to talk about the importance of reserving our representative democracy by restoring some commonsense restrictions to our nation's campaign finance system. as we have heard, saturday was the second anniversary of the supreme court's decision in the case of citizens united versus the federal election commission. already, we have seen how that decision has altered the landscape of politics in this country. when the supreme court struck down limits on corporate financing of elections, it ushered in the age of the super p.a.c. these so-called super p.a.c.'s can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money during

political campaigns with very limited disclosure requirements. this election cycle, the floodgates have really opened. super p.a.c.'s have already spent over $30 million in the 2012 cycle, and the election is still ten months away. that amount of money is just staggering. when i was home over the holidays in new hampshire, before our presidential primary, i witnessed firsthand that influx of corporate cash and what it does to the presidential election. negative ads paid for by the super p.a.c.'s contributed to disaffecting our voters and to drowning out the voices of the people, those ordinary, everyday citizens of new hampshire who aren't able to put in tens of thousands of dollars, in some

cases millions of dollars to affect the outcome of an election. this has to stop. and this is not a partisan issue. the commonsense restrictions that were struck down in the citizens united decision were part of legislation like the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002, otherwise known as mccain-feingold. that thoughtful legislation which had broad bipartisan support, limited soft money and corporate funding of political ads in a way -- and campaign spending in a way that made sense. our campaign finance system has gotten way off course, and it's time for us here in congress to help put it back on track. the unchecked influence of money in our elections compromises the very future of our representative democracy.

the moneyed special interests and corporations have been given free rein to spend unlimited amount of money during campaigns and they don't need our help being heard. it's the homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages, the parents who want to send their children to college but aren't sure how they can afford it, unemployed workers who are looking for jobs hoping that tomorrow will be better than today, those are the voices that are being drowned out in a sea of corporate and special interest cash, and those are the voices of the american people that need to be heard in washington. so as we think about on this second anniversary of this decision what we need to do to address it, to change the negative direction that it's taking this country, i urge all of my colleagues to turn their attention to this important work, to reach across the aisle

to build consensus on this issue. let us all tell the american people that we hear their voices calling for change. i look forward to speaking with all of my colleagues in the coming weeks and months about the specific approaches we can take to repair our broken campaign finance system, and hope that we will have the courage and the commitment to do something about this. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. sorry, i rescind my request. . the presiding officer: request rescinded. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. and i very much appreciate joining all my colleagues down here who have been speaking about the citizens united case and i think what you're seeing in the senate is what you're seeing in the country.

the citizens of this country are concerned about unlimited corporate funds in campaigns, and united states senators are concerned about that and are standing up and speaking out and as i know our presiding officer offering constitutional amendments and trying to resolve the situation we have before us. two years ago this week, the supreme court issued its misguided decision in citizens united versus f.e.c. citizens united was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average american. it held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as the individual americans. it enables these corporations to spend freely from their treasuries on campaign advertising. it all gave rise to so-called superpacs that we're seeing too much of.

they can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates, and what do we mean by this, by corporate treasuries and superpacs? to give you an example, exxon, the large oil company, has $80 billion in its corporate treasury. if exxon wanted to go out and create a superpac or contribute to these 200 plus superpacs out there to the tune of $80 billion, it could do it. that's what the supreme court opened up in terms of its ruling. the toxic effect of this ruling has become brutally clear in the last two years. the citizens united decision opened the floodgates to unprecedented campaign spending, drowning out the voices of ordinary americans. huge sums of unregulated, unaccountable money are flooding the airwaves and an endless wave

of attack ads paid for by billionaires is poisoning our political discourse. the american public rightly so looks on in disgust. as we head into the election year this bad situation will only get worse. the checkbooks are out and the money is gushing. citizens united really means citizens denied. denied a -- a fair playing field, denied an ek quilt quitable influence in our political system, denied a right to be truly heard, denied the right to even know who is spending all of this money. while much of the focus this week is on citizens united, we must realize that the corruption of our campaign finance system did not suddenly happen two years ago. the citizens united decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for reform.

but the supreme court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago. in 1976, the court held in buckley versus vallejo, that restricting candidate campaign expenditures violates the first amendment right to speech. it established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same thing. since then, the influence of money has continued to play an increasing role in our nation's elections. sadly, in many cases a candidate's ability to either raise money or self-finance can outweigh the quality of a candidate's ideas or dedication to public service. the buckley and citizens decisions among others demonstrate the court's willingness to ignore long-standing precedent and declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. because of this, i believe the only way to truly fix the

problem is to first amend the constitution, to grant congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system. in november of last year, i introduced such an amendment, i'm proud to say that it currently has 19 cosponsors and support continues to grow. our proposed constitutional amendment is broadly tailored and similar to bipartisan proposals introduced in similar sessions of congress dating back to 1983. it would authorize congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures. and it would allow states to regulate such spending at their level. it would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. i chose my approach to not only overturn the previous bad court

decisions but also to prevent future ones. we don't know what a future court may do. in citizens united the court upheld campaign contribution disclosure requirement. a future court might declare the same laws unconstitutional. our amendment would remedy this problem by restoring congress' authority, stripped by buckley versus vallejo and subsequent decisions to regulate the campaign finance system. if ratified the amendment would ensure that campaign finance laws would stand constitutional challenges regardless of the makeup of the supreme court. the text of my constitutional amendment and any of the others is less important right now than the concept. hearings can be held and the text can be worked out. that's really the easy part of a difficult process. what's harder to achieve and something we rarely see in our country is gaining widespread

support necessary to amend the constitution. the citizens united decision was disastrous and it may have been the very catalyst we needed to build a movement to amend the constitution. there's a groundswell of support growing across the country for a constitutional amendment to rein in the out-of-control campaign finance system. city councils from places as diverse as los angeles and new york and missoula, moment, have endorsed resolutions calling on congress to pass an amendment. several grassroots organizations and coalses have formed to advocate for an amendment. hundreds of thousands of citizens have designed petitions. is it difficult to amend the constitution? yes, and it should be. but i believe the growing momentum demonstrates that this is the right time for congress to act. our founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid

for by secretive superpacs. our founders did not bequeath us a government of the millionaires, by the millionaires, and for the millionaires. money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. we've seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government. we need to put elections back in the hands of the average americans and not in the hands of special interests with unlimited bank accounts. we need to answer to the american people and not just to the privileged. our nation cannot afford a system that says come on in to the rich and powerful and says don't bother to everyone else. the faith of the american people in their electoral system is being corrupted by big money. it's time to restore that faith, it's time for congress to take back control, it's time for a constitutional amendment

that will allow real reform. and with that be, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise to talk about the drug shortage crisis. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. ms. klobuchar: i ask that it be vitiated. i rise to talk about the drug shortage crisis that's spread across the country and i'm proud to stand with my friend and colleague, senator shiewn collins from maine who has been a leader on this issue and shares my concern for so many patients who are struggling to get much-needed medications. this is a crisis that has grown to such proportions that current drug shortages have impacted individuals all across the country, forcing some patients to delay their life-saving treatment or use unproven, less effective alternatives, in some

cases drug shoarnls have even resulted in patient deaths. enough is enough. we can no longer simply talk about this issue and have meetings. we need to act. here's one story. a few months ago, i met a young boy named axel zerbies who has a big smile, and also happens to have no hair on his head because he has childhood lou lulu keepia. last year his parents had just found out he had leukemia, they learned an essential drug was in short supply and might be available for their son. understandably, they were thrown into a panic, desperately looking for any available alternatives. they even prepared and made plans to take axel to canada where the drug was still readily available. fortunately, it didn't come to that, but axel and his parents are not alone. earlier this month i held a

forum in medinah, membership where a woman maird mary mchugh morrison shared her story. when daxol went into chemotherapy, she was shocked when her doctor told her they had run out of the drug necessary to run out of the treatment. this is in minnesota where we have excellent health care as you know, mr. president, and they ran out of drug in the middle of the treatment. while trying to get herself often a wait list, mary was able to call other clinics in search of available doxi le and was able to find extra treatments four separate times. she grappled with the ethics of the fact that she was taking this limited drug out of supply for herself and not for other

patients. however, because of a few delays in the treatment, mary's doctor told her that her tumor had unfortunately returned and that she was no longer responding to doxil. she is going without treatment and tkpwepbgd -- depending on her health condition could be placed on clinical trial in march. these shortages aren't just affecting cancer patients. there are also shortages in drugs that help people improve their quality of life. this week the indianapolis star tribune reported hundreds of patients in the minnesota sleep disorder center at hennapin center faced shortages of ritalin. risking their professional careers to adjust to their diseases and spending extra hours and days of time trying to find ways to fill a prescription or their patient or their pharmacist doing that, our their

doctors doing that or their nurses doing that. we know how difficult this health care system is anyway and now we are putting patients in this position and wasting the time of medical professionals to find drugs that should be readily available? these are just a few examples of real people who are just trying to deal with their disease. and there are many, many more like them across the country. hospitals, physicians, pharmacists are confronting unprecedented shortages. many of these are generic drug products that have been widely used for years and are proven effective. many of them are for cancer. the number of drug shortages has more than tripled over the last six years. you don't just believe my stories, listen to this. jumping from 61 drug products that were in shortage in 2005 to more than 200 last year. that's not 200 instances, mr. president. that's 200 different kinds of drugs that affect thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousand and millions of

patients across this country. a survey by the american hospital association found that virtually every single hospital in the united states of america has experienced shortages of critical drugs in the past six months. more than 80% reported delays in patient treatment due to a shortage. this isn't just a few stories that come into our office anymore. these are the facts. for some of these drugs, no substitutes are available. or if they are, they may be less effective and may involve greater risks of adverse side effects. the chance of medical errors also rises as providers are forced to use second or third-tier drugs that they're less familiar with. a survey conducted by the american hospital association showed that 100% of their hospitals experience a shortage. another survey conducted by premier health system showed that 89% of its hospitals and pharmacists experience shortage that may have caused a medication safety issue or error

in patient care. it is clear that there are a large number of overlapping factors that are resulting in unprecedented shortages. experts cite a number of factors that are responsible. these include market consolidation, poor business incentives, manufacturing problems, reduction delays, unexpected and increases in demand for a drug, inability to procure raw materials, and even -- and this is a new phenomena -- the influence of a gray market, where middlemen are hoarding the drugs because they heard there's going to be a shortage. financial decisions in the pharmaceutical industry are also a major factor. many of these medications are in short supply because companies have simply stopped production. they decided it wasn't profitable enough to keep producing them. mergers in the drug industry narrowed the focus of product lines. as a result some products are discontinued or production is moved to different sites leading to delays. when drugs are made by only a few companies, a decision by any

one drugmaker can have a large impact. to help correct a poor market environment or to prevent gray market drugs from contaminating our medication supply chain, we must address the drug shortage problem, mr. president, at its root. last year i introduced the preserving access to lifesaving medications act to address this issue. with the support and leadership of senator collins and senator bob casey and others, this bipartisan bill would require drug manufacturers to provide early notification to the f.d.a. whenever there is a factor that may lead to a shortage. this will help the f.d.a. to take the lead in working with pharmacy groups, drug manufacturers and health care providers to better manage and prepare for impending shortages, more effectively manage those shortages when they occur and minimize -- and that's what we want to do -- minimize the impact on patient care. the legislation would also direct the f.d.a. to provide

up-to-date public information of a shortage situation and the actions the agency would take to address them. additionally, the bill requires the f.d.a. to develop an evidence-based list of drugs vulnerable to shortages and to work with the manufacturers to come with a continuity of operations plan to address potential problems that may result in a shortage. and the bill would also direct the f.d.a. to establish an expedited reinspection process for manufacturers of a product in shortage. with manufacturers providing early notification, the f.d.a.'s drug shortage team -- and they do now have a drug shortage team -- can then appropriately use their tools to prevent shortages from happening. in the last two years -- listen to this, if you think this wouldn't work -- in the last two years the f.d.a. with more information has successfully prevented nearly 200 drug shortages. so it does work when they get the information. but nothing requires them to get the information, and that's what

we're trying to do here today. it is not the end all, be all solution for the long term, but at least in the short term when these patients are experiencing these drug shortages that can impact their treatment, that can impact their lives, it gives the f.d.a. that extra tool to look for alternative drugs. if they can't find them in this country, maybe they can find them in canada. but it puts the patient first, not the drug companies. at the urging of the bipartisan work group that i've been involved in, the f.d.a. has held a public workshop last september that brought together patient advocates, industry consumer groups, health care professionals and researchers to discuss the causes and the impact of drug shortages and possible strategies for preventing or mitigating future shortages. in addition to the workshop, we have been speaking with a broad range of stakeholders to try to discover why we have seen such a large number of shortages over the past few years. this current explosion of

shortages appears to be a consequence of a lack of supply of certain products to keep up with the substantial expansion in the scope and demand for these products. we must ensure that we have the manufacturing capabilities to keep up with the demand. there are a lot of ideas for incentives and pricing, but we also know that those will take a long time to take effect on the immediate shortage problem. and that is why we want to get this bill passed and passed very soon. the president has issued an executive order which is helpful, but it still doesn't get at the very serious problem of the kind of drug shortages we're seeing. the executive order pushes drug companies to notify the f.d.a. of impending shortages, expands the f.d.a.'s current efforts, instructs the f.d.a. to work with the department of justice, but there is still much more work to be done. patients like axle or mary shouldn't have to be burdened with the added stress or worry about whether or not they have enough medicine.

it is time for action. i urge my colleagues to pass our bill. i now turn it over to my friend and colleague from maine, senator susan collins. ms. collins:? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. let me first begin my remarks by commending my friend and colleague from minnesota, senator klobuchar, for leading the way on this very important bill. there are so many issues that divide us in this chamber, mr. president. surely this is an issue that should unite us. it's not a democratic issue. it's not a republican issue. it's an issue of serious consequences to the american people and to our health care system. and i would hope -- and the reason that senator klobuchar and i have come to the floor

today, i would hope that we can act immediately to pass our bill, get it through the house and send it to the president. mr. president, physicians, pharmacists and patients throughout the country are struggling to cope with a surge in shortages of needed drugs that is causing significant disruptions in health care and putting patients at risk. i share with my colleague from minnesota, her concern about this critically important problem. according to the u.s. food and drug administration, the number of drug shortages has nearly quadrupled over the last six years, jumping from 61 products

in 2005 to a record 231 by the end of november of last year. and there appears to be no end in sight. many of the drugs in short supply are vital. they're used in hospitals, in cancer centers for anesthesia, for chemotherapy, for the treatment of infections. there are also continuing shortages of drugs used in emergency rooms and in intensive care units. i've met with several doctors and other medical professionals and pharmacists in including foe medical centers to ration drugs

or postpone elective surgeries. even more tragic, oncologists have told me of situations where they have been forced to change a patient's chemotherapy regime midcourse because they suddenly encountered a shortage of a particular drug. moreover, for some drugs, such as the leukemia drug, cyterabine, which senator klobuchar mentioned as well, there are no effective substitutes. this crisis is widespread. in a survey by the american hospital association, more than 80% of our hospitals reported that they have had to delay treatment due to the shortages. now, mr. president, just think what that's like for a patient who has received the diagnosis

of cancer and has started treatment, and then finds out that the lifesaving drug that the patient needs is not available. it's hard enough to cope with a devastating diagnosis, to add to that the fact that the drug that you need isn't available is just too much to bear. more than half of our hospitals have said that they could not provide some of their patients with the recommended therapy. drug shortages are also adding to the cost of care. hospital pharmacists are having to spend additional time, some 8 to 12 hours per week, dealing with shortages, increasing labor costs by an estimated $216

million a year. and that's why i've joined with my colleague from minnesota in cosponsoring the preserving access to lifesaving medications act. our bill will provide the f.d.a. with better tools to better manage, and we hope, prevent shortages of lifesaving medications. first and foremost, it takes a very commonsense step of requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to notify the f.d.a. of the discontinuance, interruption or other adjustment in the manufacture of a drug that would likely lead to a shortage. providing early warning when a drug will not be available will help both physicians and that i shall patients. it builds -- and their patients. it builds on a successful model,

the f.d.a. drug shortage program, which encourages manufacturers to report potential or existing shortages so that the problems can be addressed or other manufacturers can ramp up their production. through this voluntary approach, the f.d.a. has been able to avert 195 shortages last year. our bill also directs the f.d.a. to provide up-to-date public notification of any shortages and it directs the f.d.a. to work with manufacturers to establish contingency plans to address drug shortages due to manufacturing problems such as a shortage of raw materials or reduction in production capabilities. mr. president, our legislation would give the f.d.a. the

information and the tools it needs to help address and prevent drug shortages. this, in turn, will help to ensure better hospitals and health care professionals are able to provide the best care that medical science allows. most important, it will help ensure that patients have access to the medications they need when they need them most. mr. president, i'm proud to join with my colleague from minnesota in sponsoring such an important initiative. i urge our colleagues on the "help" committee to act quickly to report this bill and the full senate to act without delay to approve it as well. surely this is an issue that should bring this chamber together and that we should act

on immediately. thank you, mr. president. and thank you, my friend from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrr minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i want to thank senator collins for her greater leadership. this bill is moving. this bill is picking up support across the nation. and, again, we need to get it done. we can't wait. these patients can't wait. mr. president, i'm here today also to talk about something that's very important to the future of our democracy, and that is campaign finance reform and the citizens united decision by the supreme court, which had its second anniversary a few days ago. i see senator gillibrand from new york is also here to speak on this important issue. she's been a leader. and you, mr. president, have done some very important work in this area as well. which i'll get to in a minute. most importantly, and most fundamentally, i am a here to talk about the public's lack of

trust and our need to ensure that the american people have a government that is responsive to their concerns. it is vital to the american people have trust and confidence in their government and right now it is clear that they don't have either. the american people believe that washington is focused more on scoring political points and tr special interests and not looking out for their interestsment, for the interests of the people of this country for the interests. middle class. they've seen the preservation of oil company subsidies while at the same time the price of gasoline has respected painfully high. simply put, they think the system is broken. and while most people probably don't have the time to study the intricate details of campaign finance law, which has loopholes and things written in designed to make it hard to figure out, the american people have a pretty good sense that there is something wrong with how we conduct our elections. the american people know that spending on campaigns has gotten out of control and that spending

by special interest groups is contributing greatly to that problem. and they are right. the supreme court citizens united decision has made things profoundly worse by loosening the rules on special interest spending on political campaigns. we're now in a situation, mr. president, where candidates have to report every single contribution they raise over a certain amount. that's good. but literally millions of dollars in special interest money can come in in attack ads, can come in and do whatever it wants and you literally cannot even prove who that person is who put that money in. that shakes the very foundation of our democracy when the people who are voting in these elections cannot even tell where the money is coming from that's paying for the ads. citizens united has unleashed a new wave of special interest spending and the american people have been inundated with negative ads on that you are televisions. but, worse, they are constantly hearing about the increased role that special interests are

playing in elections and that heightens their suspicion that washington is working only for the powerful, only for the people that can pay for those ads. the public believes, justifiably, that the more money outside groups spend on campaigns, the less their voices are heard. how can they have a voice when people are drowning out their voices with multimillions of dollars? so this is a big problem and it's something i believe we need to address. the president touched on this issue of 0 money in politics in his state of the union this week and in his address this year he took on citizens united directly. he knows that we need change, and i agree. but, unfortunately, the citizens united decision makes it very difficult to take action legislatively. that is why tim a sponsor of a constitutional -- that is why i am a sponsor of a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to pass laws regulating campaign fund-raising and spending. tom udall has worked on and i know you also, mr. president, have a similar bill as well. i hope that we can advance this

amendment, but i realize it will be an uphill battle, especially as we enter an election year. but we must change this system. in the meantime, even before the election, i'm hopeful we can take some steps to make it more transparent so that at least we can start finding out who is spending this money, so the people of vermont or the people of new york or the people of minnesota can find out who's putting in millions of dollars and they can draw their own conclusions. they are a pretty smart -- about why they're sphendzing that money. we need it transparent but we also have to stem this great abuse of power, this great amount of money that's coming in the system and in the end we will need this constitutional amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask to speak a if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: like millions of americans all across our country, i was shocked to learn that insider trading by members of congress in fact and their families and their staff using nonpublic information gained through their congressional work is not clearly and expresscy prohibited by law and the rules of congress. the american people need to know that their elected leaders play by the exact same rules that they have to play by. they also deserve the right to know that their lawmakers' only interest is what's best for the

country, not what's best for their own financial interests. members of congress, their families, and staff shouldn't be able to gain personal profits from information they have access to that everyday middle-class american families don't. it's simply not right. nobody should be above the rules. i introduced a bipartisan bill in the senate with 28 of our senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle to close this loophole. the stock act legislation is very similar to the legislation introduced by my friends in the house, congressman louise slaughter and tim walls. i want to thank chairman lieberman and ranking member collins for all of their work in acting swiftly to move this bipartisan bill out of committee with a sense of common purpose, straight to the floor for a vote. i want to thank leader reid for

his leadership and support in bringing up this bill before the full senate. our bill, which has received the support of at least seven good government groups, covers two important principles. first, members of congress, their families, and their staff should be barred from buying or selling securities on the basis of knowledge gained thrie through their congressional service or from using the knowledge to tip off someone else. the s.e.c. and the cftc must be empowered to investigate these cases. to provide additional teeth, such acts should also be in violation of congress's own rules, to make it clear that this activity is not only against the law but inappropriate for this body. and, second, members should also be required to disclose major transactions within 30 days to

make information online for their constituents to see providing dramatically improved oversight and accountability from the current annual reporting requirements. and i'm pleased the final product that passed with bipartisan support in the committee is a strong bill with teeth and includes measures such as ensuring that members of congress cannot tip off others with nonpublic information gained through their duties and ensures trading from this information would also be in violation of congress's own ethics rules. some critics say the bill is unnecessary and already covered under current statutes. i am i've spoken to experts tasked in the past with investigations of this nature and they strongly disagree. we must make it unambiguous that this kind of behavior is illegal. at my home state newspaper of the buffalo news noted, "the stock act would ensure that people's business -- that the people's business is being

attended to." president obama said in his state of the union address, "send this bill" and he will sign it right away. we shouldn't delay. it is time to act and take a step right knew to begin restoring the trust that is broken in congress. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i as request to spek as if in morning business. the presiding officer: wowvment. mr. wicker: i rise deeply concerned about president obama's overstep of executive authority in the ostensible appointment of richard cordray as the director of the consumer financial protection bureau, cfpb, and three new members of the national labor relations board. these unilateral, nonrecess appointments are a blatant abuse of power, one that threatens the very legitimacy of the

confirmation process and undermines the congress's critical responsibility to restrain the excesses of the executive branch p. on january 4, mere weeks after this body had rejected mr. cordray's nomination, the president went ahead with his own agenda, disregarding our decision and the fact that the senate was in pro forma session. days later, unbelievably, the obama justice department's office of legal counsel defended the move essentially saying that pro forma sessions do not matter anymore, that the president can determine whether the senate is in recess, reversing years of precedent, the administration is asserting that the executive branch now has the authority to decide when the legislative branch is or is not in session. this presumptuous action by the president goes far beyond the

limited powers he is granted by our constitution. it is an affront to the democratic checks and balances established by our founders and it constitutes a gross violation of precedent set by those who have come before us. the courts will surely have a say in what the president has done. amounting to an expensive, unnecessary move for pure political reasoning. it was foal a matter of days before business groups filed a legal challenge against the president's appointments to the nlrb. to be sure, the president has the right to make recess appointments. this much is unquestioned and clearly set forth in article 2, section 2, of the constitution. which states "the president can -- quote -- "fill up all vacancies that will happen during the recess of the senate." but the power he has is execute this right nevertheless hinges on a condition that all parties

have acknowledged. the senate must be in recess. as it states in article 1, section 5, clause 4, of the constitution, quote, "neither house during the session of congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days." end of quote. the house of representatives had not formally given our chamber that consent when the president made his appointments. moreover, senators had agreed by unanimous consent to remain in pro forma session. what the president has done triggers a dangerous, new precedent. with this overstep, those in the obama administration have put their political agenda above the constitution. and above the founding principles that establish our government's separation of powers. this is no trifling matter. equally trouble something that this power grab could inspire

further overreach, setting an unconstitutional model for future administrations. it stands to reason that if the president's judgment, not congress les, dictates when the senate is in recess, then what would stop him from making an appointment whenever he chooses? michael mcconnell, a distinguished former federal judge, and director of the constitutional law center at stanford law school, recently suggested in "the wall street journal" that the president could, for example, make an appointment overnight or during a lunch break. the parameters of what recess means would be subject to his discretion and his discretion alone. in 2007, majority leader harry reid kept the senate in pro forma session to block nominations by president bush. he said then that recess appointments are an end-run around the senate and the constitution. the majority leader's position

then was that proform in a sessions may be used to prevent recess appointments. the democratic leadership was correct on the law then and they ought to be outraged now over president obama's disregard of precedent and of the constitution. insterkd the democratic leader, who should be protecting the institution that he currently has stewardship of, as well as protecting our constitution, last week defended the president's appointments on the national news as -- quote -- "a good move." pentagon constitution does not change based on which party occupies the white house. the same rules should apply no matter who holds office. america was not built upon, nor did it rise to greatness, because of a single branch of government. our democracy sits on three

separate pillars, and the decisions of the legislative branch are not merely a hurdle for the president to run around. the constitution endods the senate with exclusive authority to give advice and consent on the executive branch and official nominations. senators upheld their role to advise when we rejected mr. correspondent descrai's nomination. many of us made our reasons for the disapproval well-known. last year 44 republican senators sent a letter to the president stating that the consumer financial protection bureau established by the dodd-frank act was in desperate need of reform before a director could be appointed. this has nothing to do with mr. cordray as an individual but it has everything to do with creating a flawed agency, an extremely powerful one at that. we pointed out our concerns

about how unaaccountable this bureau will be to the american people. we raised a red flag about the extraordinary power it gives to unelected government bureaucrats, particularly the bureau's director. it is clear that our advice did not fit with the white house's agenda. this happens in a functioning democracy, and this should be honored. the president has decided not to honor the will of the senate. he's tried to make an unauthorized appointment that the members of this body have rejected. in doing so, in circumventing the decisions of elected public servants, his order ultimately diminishes the voice of the american people. in recent months, the president has made it obvious he wants to rail against a do-nothing congress. perhaps it's part of his reelection strategy. and yet instead of working with congress to make needed reforms, he fuels an already polarized

environment with this move on recess appointments. i say this with all sincerity to the president and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. there's a time for spin and there's a time to make political points, but politics and theater ought to stop short of trampling on our constitution. like each of us, i made an oath to support and defend the constitution when i took this office. i would not be upholding this pledge if i did not speak out now over what the president has done. preserving the constitutional sanctity of the decisions of the senate and the role it serves is one way we support and defend our founding document and the democratic ideals of those who created it. mr. president, the chair of the banking committee has scheduled a hearing on tuesday supposedly to hear the testimony from mr. cordray on his plans for the consumer finance protection

board. let me be explicitly clear. richard cordray is not the duly constituted director of the cfpb. his purported recess appointments does not comply with the constitution as, in fact -- and is, in fact, a nullit weather. i will not provide the add -- a nullity. i will not provide the administration with the appearance of legitimacy and i will, therefore, not be in attendance at next tuesday's hearing. this may seem to be a small step but i hope it is the first of what will become a debate in this senate by both parties about the constitutional checks and balance. this matter will also go to the courts and i pray that somewhere in the process the sanctity of our constitution will be upheld. i approach this matter regressfully and sobering but with apprehension about what the

obama administration is trying to do to our 225-year-old constitution. i call upon members of both parties in this senate to rise up in solemn defense of this institution and in the constitutional principle of the separation of power. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. begich: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff, william moet, a fellow in my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: thank you very much, madam president. and before i speak on my formal comments, i just want to say one thing. i know the senator from new york was here just a little bit ago talking about the stock act.

she made an incredible presentation to us in the homeland government services committee and i am greatful that she's moving forward on that. we actually added a piece to the stock act which i think makes it even more -- a lot stronger than it is now by making sure that as officials report their transactions, that they are done electronically and searchable. so that means anybody in this country can go to the web site of the senate and find the information about their senator. as you know, as a new candidate and person in this office, as i was, you know, our disclosure forms when we file them, they're sent to the senate clerk and then if you want them, they've got to copy them and send them off to someone else. you can't search for them, you can't get them, which is unbelievable. so we made sure in the committee that we -- that if we do this act, i think it's a strong act, it's something that we should do, that we he make sure it is searchable, available electronically in this age we live in today. i already put my disclosure form on my web site.

i have put it on there since the day i came into office because i think people need to know exactly what their senator's investments are, who they get -- if they have spouses, in my case, my spouse, all her information is on there. even though i'm not required to do it, i put it on there because i think people need to know the household income of their senator and where it comes from and where their investments are. we overreport. actually, there's times when, as i fill them out, we have an attorney review them, they always tell me we're giving too much information. so i have to remind them that's what we're doing, that's the way i think it should be done. so again, i congratulate the senator from new york, who is here, for her work on the stock act and i'm glad that i could participate in making it even stronger. madam president, i seek the floor to speak about my residents of alaska, a state that constantly overcomes adversity in their tough winters. and this year has been a tough winter. alaska's history is marked by stories of people coming together to overcome extreme hardships and save their

communities. none is more memorable than the 1925sirum run when diphtheria ravaged nome. the needed vaccine was raced to community by a team of 20 mushers and some 150 sled dogs. they faced brutal february weather and extreme cold, where winds and snowdrifts and carried their precious cargo, the vaccine, some 700 miles in just 5 1/2 days. it's a speed record that's never since been broken and it saved the community. the feat is memorialized today by the thousand-mile iditerod sled dog race known as the last great race on earth. this year, the city of nome faced a 21st century challenge -- the need for energy. the fall fuel barge, the last scheduled before winter set in, was blocked. first by a mammoth october storm which swept up western alaska and then by heavy sea ice.

the barge had to turn back. but without the delivery, nome would run out of fuel by march. nome is not connected by road and the earliest the next barge would arrive would be this june. flying in 1.3 million gallons of fuel would have taken 300 flights and would have boasted the cost of already an expensive gasoline and home heating fuel to over $9 a gallon. as you can see here, the price of fuel in the community right now is over $5 a gallon. instead, the citnusak native corporation and vi it tas marine proposed to do what never has been done before -- bring over a million gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline to nome in the dead of winter. they contracted with a russian flag tanker, the rinade, in which was ice capable and double-hulled. and to ensure the safety of the

delivery, the coast guard immediately recognized it had a mission and the right equipment. the coast guard ice breaker healy had just completed a lengthy scientific tour off the arctic. rather than return home, they stayed on the job as winter set in, breaking open lanes through the ice to allow the tanker to arrive. the healy and the rinda encountered conditions more severe than anticipated. colder temperatures, wind strong, ice thicker. some days their progress was frozen literally. but the healy pressed on through the ice. and with the determination which is the hallmark of the united states coast guard, they succeeded. they didn't make it to nome harbor, which was frozen solid, but close enough to top off the city's fuel tanks through a half-mile-long hose. now they're on their way back home but not out of the ice yet. the healy and the rinda still have several hundred miles before they reach open water. i take to the floor today to offer my thanks and

congratulations to captain beverly havlick and the men and women aboard the healy for a job well done. also, the crew of the charter tanker, the rinda, and many others who helped ensure the transfer of fuel was safe. workers from the citnusuk corporation, the vitas ma reason, the city of nome -- marine, the city of nome, the state of alaska and others who played their part. even the researchers who flew aerial drones to inspect ice conditions in advance of the approaching vessels. together they proved winter operations are possible even in the most challenging circumstances. madam president, i speak today not just to congratulate all those who pitched in to help refuel this community but to consider its broader implications and lessons. first, america is antarctic nation -- is an arctic nation. the respects of cities like nome

and kotzebue and barrow and numerous smaller villages thrive in the often challenging but rich art particular environment. the alaska native peoples have thrived in the arctic for generations, for thousands of years, living off the resources of the land and sea. second, the arctic offers much to our nation. its offshore oil and natural gas our most promising energy province, which is actively being considered by the industry. trade routes over the top are increasingly being explored by shippers eager to cut up the 40% -- cut off 40% off trade routes between the east and the west. yet while we are an arctic nation, we lack the basic infrastructure to serve its people, to fulfill our responsibilities and take advantage of its opportunities. but it's not just me saying it. just today, the northern waters task force released a report calling for better arctic infrastructure. the healy is our nation's only operational polar icebreaker,

and it's only rated as a medium duty vessel. our two heavy duty ice breakers are both idle. the 36-year-old polar star is being retrofitted and should be operational again soon. but it's been proposed to send her sister ship, the polar sea, to the scrap heap. since taking office, i have repeatedly called for recapitalizing the nation icebreaker fleet. a comprehensive coast guard study recently found that six to ten icebreakers are needed just to meet the coast guard's statutory responsibilities. until we have a firm plan to meet these needs, i've introduced legislation with senator cantwell to halt the dismantling of the polar sea until the options -- all options can be considered. madam president, without icebreakers, we can neither meet our responsibilities nor take advantage of our opportunities as an arctic nation. we are falling behind. behind arctic nations like russia. china, who is not an arctic nation but building icebreakers.

canada and others as well. russia is building year-round arctic port. canada is conducting military operations. and, as i mentioned, china is building new icebreakers. america must build its arctic infrastructure, such as a deepwater port, to maintain our national presence as other nations stake their claims to the arctic. we need to maintain spill response capabilities, enhance communications, track the increasing vessel traffic using polar routes, strengthening communication and the base scientists who are researching the changing arctic ecosystems. in addition to the infrastructure, we need the legal framework to support our arctic presence, and that means ratification of the law of the sea treaty. we need a robust scientific program to track changes to the arctic which in the past has operated like a global air conditioner. but scientists say and the residents of the region confirm

the arctic is warming. and as its ice packs diminish, it is changing our weather. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, noaa, says that there were a record 12 weather disasters in the united states, costing more than $1 billion each in 2011. the hurricane forces -- force storm that blocked the fuel delivery to nome isn't the only unusual severe weather facing my state. south central alaska has had -- and i will repeat this when i say it -- 24 feet of snow. 24 feet of snow so far this winter. the cities of cordova and valued ease know a thing or two about -- and valez know a thing or two about heavy winter snowfalls. in cordova, buildings collapsed and avalanche cut the town off from its airport.

that's a true concern. since like 80% of the rest of alaska, cordova is not connected by roads to the rest of the state. the army and national guard sent soldiers and airmen to the scene and the state of alaska sent over 100 state responders and heavy equipment to the town by state ferry. the whole town, along with the guardsmen and the state workers, pitched in and worked around the clock to clear the snow off the streets and roofs as another snow and rain system was about to hit. the only problem -- alaskans can be rather enthusiastic and kept breaking every single one of those snow shovels. eventually, they ran out and had to have more snow shovels shipped in from around the state. other parts of the state are affected as well. boats capsized in the fishing port of kodiak due to the heavy snow. yesterday, once again, the coast guard came and performed their duty. performed not only one but two rescues of crews, fishing vessels that sank near kodiak

island. and noaa is closely watching the heaviest sea ice in decades in the berrien sea which threatens to destroy important crab fisheries and destroy millions of dollars in fishing gear. some politicians downgrade public service and say government can't do anything right. i'm grateful for the government's response. i'm grateful to the coast guard's response on the healy who gave up their holiday with their families to ensure nome got its fuel, and i'm grateful to the alaska national guard and the state and local governments working to help dig out cordova and valdez. again, i know my time has expired, but i want to say there is no question in my mind that work that the coast guard did, the guard and many others set us on a course again to recognize incredible people who are doing incredible things in our state and around this country. as we continue to look at the vast resources of the arctic, more of these resources will be necessary, and i know one thing about americans, about alaskans.

we will be ready to take on the challenges of the future and the future of the arctic. thank you, madam chair. a senator: madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam chair, i rise in defense of the u.s. constitution. i stand against an action taken recently by our chief executive. president obama's january 4, 2012, appointments to the consumer financial protection bureau and to the national labor relations board are different in kind than previous recess appointments made by presidents of the united states belonging to both political parties. these four appointments are unconstitutional because they did not, as required by article 2, section 2, receive the advice and consent of the senate even though such advice and contessa contessa -- consent was necessary under the circumstances. now, president obama has

asserted the appointments to our constitution under the recess appointments clause. that clause provides that the president may -- quote -- "fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate." close quote. the clause does not apply here, however, because the senate was not in recess when president obama made the appointments in question. in making these appointments, the president did not state that he believes an intrasession adjournment of less than three days constitutes a recess, and there can be little dispute that such a brief adjournment as occurred between january 3, 2012, when the second session of the 112th congress officially began and january 6, 2012, when the next pro forma session of the senate occurred does not, in fact, constitute a recess for purposes of the recess appointments clause. the department of justice has consistently maintained that an

intrasession adjournment must be longer than three days to constitute such a recess, and the text of the constitution evidences that the framers did not consider an adjournment of less than three days to be constitutionally significant. indeed, in article 1, section 5, we read that neither house during the session of congress shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days. now, at the time that these appointments, the appointments in question were made, the senate had not received consent from the house of representatives to adjourn for a period of time more than three days, and if an intrasession adjournment of less than three days were to be considered constitutionally sufficient for the president to exercise his recess appointment power, it's unclear what, if anything, might prevent the president from

routinely bypassing the constitution's advice and consent requirement and appointing nominees during even weekend adjournments. the department of justice's office of legal counsel asserts that the president may unilaterally conclude that the senate's brief pro forma sessions do not constitute sessions of the senate for purposes of the recess appointments clause, but this assertion is deeply flawed. it is for the senate and not for the president of the united states to determine when the senate is in session. the constitution expressly grants the senate the power to determine the rules of its own proceedings. granting the president unilateral power to override this senate's determination of when it is in session would undermine the constitutional prerogative and violate the constitution's fundamental principles of separation of powers. the o.l.c. memorandum on which the president relies asserts

that the touchstone for determining when the senate is in session is -- quote -- "its practical effect, whether or not the senate is capable of exercising its constitutional function of advising and consenting to executive nominations." close quote. this analysis contradicts the text and the original understanding of the recess appointments clause. the purpose of that clause, we read in federalist number 67, which was authored by alexander hamilton, was to avoid object bridging the -- obliging the senate to be continually in session for the appointment of officers. nothing in either the constitution's text or in the debate surrounding the recess appointment clause suggests in any way that the president should have the unilateral power to appoint officers and judges at times when the senate is regularly meeting, even if that body is not conducting

substantial business. in addition, the o.l.c. memorandum's functionalist argument fails on its own terms during the senate's pro forma sessions, including its session on january 6, 2012, the senate was manifestly capable of exercising its constitutional function of advice and consent. notably, one such pro forma session on december 23, 2011, the senate passed a significant piece of legislation, demonstrating that it is, in fact, capable of conducting business, meaningful business at such sessions. but regardless of how much business the senate conducts during pro forma sessions or how much business it indicates in statements that it intends to conduct in advance of such sessions, the senate has been and continues to be capable of conducting business at such sessions, including advising and

consenting as to nominations from the president, should it decide to do so. o.l.c.'s argument boils down to an untenable assertion that because the senate has chosen not to act on the president's nominations during its sessions, it was incapable of doing so. finally, o.l.c.'s assertion that pro forma sessions are not cognizable for purposes of the recess appointments clause violates established constitutional practice and senate tradition. the constitution provides that neither house during the session of congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, and that unless congress shall by law appoint a different day, congress shall begin each annual session by meeting at noon on the third day of january. the senate has commonly and without objection used pro forma sessions to fulfill both constitutional requirements, evidencing a past consensus that

such sessions really are of constitutional significance. president obama's novel assert that such sessions no longer count for purposes of the recess appointments clause thus upsets the precedent and creates an internal contradiction in the treatment of senate sessions for purposes of the constitution. president obama's january 4, 2012, appointments to the cfpb and the nlrb are unconstitutional. as duly sworn united states senators, we each have an institutional and a constitutional duty to preserve and defend the prerogatives of the senate, particularly from the encroachments of the executive. the president's unconstitutional appointments simply cannot stand. throughout my time as a member of the judiciary committee, i have made it a point to work collaboratively with members

from across the aisle, and i have also gone out of my way to cooperate with the current administration to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the president's nominees, the judicial and other positions are considered and receive a vote. and both in the judiciary committee and on the floor, i have voted for dozens of nominees with whom i fundamentally disagree on various issues simply because they were nominated by a president who was duly elected by the people, but i will do so no more. my concerns, to be clear, are nonpartisan, and i will be equally quilt of any republican president who might attempt to make recess appointments under the same deeply flawed legal theory. given this president's blatant and apreejious disregard for proper constitutional procedures and for the senate's unquestioned role in such appointments -- and i find myself dutybound to resist the

consideration and approval of additional nominations until the president takes steps to remedy the situation. regardless of what precise course i choose to pursue, the president certainly will not continue to enjoy my nearly complete cooperation unless and until he rescinds his unconstitutional recess appointments. thank you, madam chair. mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, madam president. madam president, it is no great secret that our country today faces many enormously difficult problems. we remain in the midst of a very serious recession. real unemployment is at about 15%. our middle class continues to decline. the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider. 50 million americans have no

health insurance. millions of young people are struggling, trying to figure out how they are going to make it into college and pay for their college education, but in the midst of all of those problems, i hope very much that we do not forget about the problems facing one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society, and that is senior citizens. we are an aging population. that's no secret. today and every day, some 10,000 americans reach the age of 65, and if we as a nation do not begin to address the very serious reality of an aging population, we are going to be in a lot of trouble that we are not anticipating. and one of the issues that we have got to understand is that not only are we an aging

population, but many of those people who are becoming 65 and older are dealing with issues of poverty. incredibly enough, 20% of the seniors in this country are living on incomes, an average income of $7,500 per year. $7,500 per year average income for the bottom 20% of seniors in this country. and frighteningly and embarrassingly, more and more seniors in this country are literally going hungry. today there are almost one million seniors who go hungry, and many, many more who face the threat of hunger. that should not be happening in the united states of america. what america is supposed to be

about is that when you age, you can live out your remaining years with security and dignity, not trying to find food in order to stay alive. now, that's the bad news. the good news is that we have federal legislation called the older american act which to some degree begins to address these very, very serious problems, and i'm happy to announce today that as the chairman of the subcommittee on primary care, primary health care and aging, we will be introducing legislation to reauthorize and improve the older americans act. madam president, the legislation that we are offering is going to do its very best to say that senior citizens in this country will not go hungry.

this legislation is going to significantly increase funding for senior centers all over this country to provide congregate meal programs in senior centers. in my view, these congregate meal programs are enormously important, not only because they provide good nutrition to seniors all over our nation, but also they allow seniors to come together to socialize, to talk to each other, to get some of the professional help that they need in their waning years. so we've got to strengthen the congregate meal program, and that's what this bill does. in addition to that, there is another program which is almost life and death to some of the most fragile and vulnerable people in this country, and that is the meals on wheels program. and what meals on wheels is

about, takes place all over this country, is you have people in senior -- senior centers and in other institutions who take meals, a good quality, nutritious, hot meal to seniors, sometimes living at the end of a dirt road in vermont or in utah or in new hampshire. these are people who cannot leave their homes, especially in the wintertime. these are people who in some cases would not survive if they did not have that meals on wheels program, and i want to take this opportunity to thank the many, many volunteers from senior center and other institutions who get in their cars and in their trucks to take these hot meals to seniors all over this country through the meals on wheels program. what we are finding in my state of vermont and what we are finding around the country is that many senior centers simply do not have the resources now to

accommodate the growing number of seniors who need the meals on wheels program. and let me further say to any of my friends who say, well, senator sanders, this is a good idea, it's going to cost money. yeah, it will. to increase funding for meals on wheels and congregate meals will cost additional revenue but at the end of the day the federal government will save money. we have had hearings on this issue, we've had physicians come forward, and they say that one of the reasons that seniors end up in the hospital, seniors end up in the emergency room, is because they are malnourished , because it's sometimes literally because of malnourish. they fall, break their hips at great expense to medicaid or medicare. so not only is it the right and moral thing to do to keep seniors in this country from going hungry in the long run we

save money by keeping them healthy. furthermore, madam president, in this bill we are going to do something that i think is long overdue. there has been a lot of discussion here in the senate and the house about social security, and some of my friends, often republicans, sometimes democrats, think that we should cut social security, that we should try to move toward a balanced budget by cutting funding for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. i strongly oppose that, and one of the arguments brought forth to cut social security is, well, the cola, the consumer price index for the elderly, how we determine what the cola is, it's too generous. it's really ?ad qawt. when i -- inadequate. when i tell that to senior

citizens in vermont, you know what they do? they laugh. they literally laugh when i tell them there are people in washington, d.c. who believe that the formulation as to how we determine colas is too generous and they say bernie, we haven't gotten a cola for the last two years so how is this too generous? and they are of course right. the way we in my view formulate the cola right now is inadequate not because it is too generous but quite the contrary. the truth of the matter is that seniors' purchasing needs are different than the general population's. everybody knows that. seniors spend a higher percentage of their income on prescription drugs. they spend it on health care. in cold-weather states like mine and new hampshire they spend it on keeping warm. senior citizens are not out there by and large buying flat-screen tvs or laptop computers or iphones or

ipads. their money is going into health care. what has been happening in recent years while the cost of some products, electronics in general, have been going down, the cost of prescription drugs and health care has been going up. so when you tell seniors that their cola is too generous, they tell you that that makes no sense at all because they're spending more and more on health care, prescription drugs, staying warm in the wintertime. so what we have done in this bill is requested that the bureau of labor statistics improve the consumer price index for the elderly or cpie by including more of the items that seniors spend money on like prescription drugs and other health care costs. we must have a more accurate measure for colas for seniors, and i believe this is the path to a fair cola. madam president, i look forward to working with all of the

members of the senate to make sure that we do right by our parents and our grandparents, that we make sure that seniors in this country can live out their remaining years in security and in dignity by reauthorizing a strong and fair older americans act in the coming months. and i especially want to applaud senators kohl, mikulski, casey and franken for introducing other innovative and important older american act amendments. madam president, we're in a critical moment in american history. in the midst of all the other challenges that we face, let us not turn our backs on those whose -- who sacrificed, who fought the wars, who built the economies that made this country great. let us support a strengthened and improved older americans act. and with that, madam president,

i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of s. res. 355 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 355ing honoring the memory of special sergeant jared francon of the ogden, utah police department. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the senate will proceed. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you madam president. on january , 2012, special agent franken of the ogden, utah police department serving on the weeber morgan strike force was fatally wounded while

defending his fellow officers as they attempted to serve a search warrant on an ogden residence. i want to express my deep epps condolences to his family, especially his wife, his two daughters and the many friends throughout the whole community. serving as a police officer was a lifelong dream for special agent franken. he served with honor and distinction and was trusted and beloved by his fellow officers. he was a fine man, a good father, a good husband, and a model citizen and public servant. on january 11, a crowd of 4,000 people about half of them union fortunatelied officers from utah and elsewhere, attended his funeral. five of special agent franken's officers on the strike force,

five of them, including michael runkis, casey burrell, sergeant nate hutchinson of the weber county sheriff's office and jason vander worth were also wounded in the shooting. officer burrell remains hospitalized as he recovers from the serious injuries that he sustained in the shooting. madam president, along with everyone in utah, i am deeply saddened by this turn of events. at the same time we are humbled as this tragedy reminds us all -- reminds us all of the bravery and dedication of the women and men of law enforcement who risk their lives every day to keep their communities and our communities safe. as i have served the people of utah over the years i've had a chance to meet and get to know many members of our later community -- law enforcement community. they are among the most honor

able people i hope to meet. i'm honored just to be in their presence. today i was joined by senator lee in introducing this resolution recognizing the sacrifice of special agent franken, extending the senate's condolences to his family, and friends, expressing our good wishes to his fellow officers and hoping that they will all have a full and speedy recovery. and of course recognizing the remarkable courage and honor displayed by the men and women of law enforcement. i want to thank my colleagues for their support of this resolution which i know will mean a lot to officer franken's family, his fellow officers and their community. mr. president -- madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:*6 quorum call:

. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. i'm rising today to spend a few minutes to talk about home to talk about alaska. we have a tendency, think, sometimes up north to do things in a big way, a bold way. we tend to brag a little bit about it. and that's all -- that's all okay. but we have been in the center of the news cycle for a few weeks this winter at the onset of this year because of our weather, which has been really big and really bold. and, as a consequence of some of the extremes that we're seeing up north, it has brought out, i think, the best of alaskans, certainly the warmth that comes from a northern climate.

i think you see that yourself, coming from a state where you have some conditions with snow and cold, but the neighbor-to-neighbor response that comes about when we're dealing with mother nature at her finest or at her most extreme, i think it is something that really does help define us as a people. and today i want to speak for a few moments to recognize the very extraordinary efforts that we have seen recently of the united states coast guard and the alaska national guard in helping the residents of several of our communities, again, since early this year. earlier on the floor, my colleague, the junior senator from alaska, mentioned some of the events that have happened, and he, too, acknowledged the hard work and the very significant efforts of our coast guard and the alaska national

guard. but i think it is important to make sure that we all take the time to tell the story, to share it with our colleagues and to share it with people around the country. i know that in many parts of the united states right now, there are some areas that are just begging for snow. i've got sons that are out in colorado, and they're waiting, and i know here on the east coast many of us would prefer a little bit more snow. but sometimes it's one of those be careful what you ask for or you may be like the community of valdez and have 27 feet in your community. that's a little bit more than i think most of us would ask for or hope for. the community of nome has been in the news for months now, as they have felt the brunt of some early winter storms and storms

that have forced them as a community in a northwestern region of our state to really feel the pinch of mother nature here in a very extreme way. nome is a community of about 3,500 residents, sits up on the west coast of alaska. most people in this country remember or recall nome from early days of gold rush but more recently nome comes into the national news every march when the infamous or the famous iditarod sled dog race is run there, an 1,100-mile race where man and animal are really pitched against mother nature in a pretty intense way. but, nome makes it in the headlines for several different reasons. well, this year adds yet another reason where nome is in the

history books, where people are talking about this incredible part of the state. alaska is known for our tough winters and, again, i started off my comments by saying, you know, we kind of like the fact that we're tougher than the rest of the world and we brag about it. but this winter has been particularly harsh. we've seen record colds, we've seen snowstorms hit the state earlier than usual. i was up in the state last week. places like bethel, which normally average about -- just about zero this time of year. we're looking at 20 below for extended periods of time, not just for a day or taboo but for an extended -- not just nor a day or two, imu for an extended periods of time. not only have they been hit with below-zero temperatures, but massive amounts of snow hitting them as well. nome is a coastal community and

they receive their annual fuel supplies in the -- they basically fuel up for the winter. the only way to get to nome is to fly i in or to go around the water there. and so in order to get the fuel tanks filled up for the winter, the fuel -- the annual fuel barges come in and have to do this in early fall before you have ice conditions out in the bering sea. this year, if you'll recall, tbas back in october, everyone was watching the news because of the massive storms that were pounding western alaska. back here in washington, d.c., every even on the news, you can see these major storms coming through. if we were down here, they would have called them hurricane-force

winds. it was a tough winter storm. 's what what happened with that storm is it prevented the fuel barge from reaching nome so the shipment of fuel that they would receive for the winter is not able to come in. now, you might think, well, fuel up the community another way. well, again, there are no loads much what's the other way? the other way is aircraft. so you would have to fly in barrels of fuel, driving the cost of fuel up, and quite honestly adding to the risk of transport. so it is an issue where fuel delivery by air, while it's possible, is not the preferable route here. so you're sitting in a situation where you have not only a community of 3,3500, but all of the surrounding villages in the region rely on nome for their backup. so they are at risk, too.

and without the fuel tanks being filled, what the community and what the region were looking at was a situation where by about march, depending on march, depending how hash the winter was, they were going to run out of fuel. well, if the january temperatures are any indication where it's been below 20 degrees below zero, on average -- you know, on average nome is usually about 2 degrees. it's been 20 below and colder for a long time. so you're going to go through that fuel pretty darn quick. then what do you do? you're stuck until spring. april, march, isn't that spring in no, ladies and gentlemen, it's not. because you can't get those fuel tanks refilled until the next fuel barge can come, which would then be when all of the ice is ute of the bering sea, which pit -- is out of the beer sea, which puts you into may-june.

that's your reality up north. so you've got a major community and outlying villages that are looking at a very, very real threat to their community. right now senator begich showed a budget committee on the -- right now, senator begich showed a picture on the floor. the price of regular fuel at the pump is $500 -- that's what it feels like to the people of nome. $5.40. that's what they're paying today. diesel is just a hair under -- it's just less than $6. but that's what these people are paying right now. if they were having to fly in fuel for the balance of the winter, what they were looking at was about $9 a gallon. and this is on top of all of the other extraordinary costs that they pay as a community that is reliant on air for just about

everything that they count on. so most of you i think may have seen the story in the news. lots of people got to work to try to address the situation. i was in contact with the coast guard to see what they could do to help. the coast guard was amazing in saying, yes, we're committed to this mission. we're going to help the people of nome. we're going to help the people of the region. so what came together was a pretty interesting story. you've got a russian fuel tanker, the renda, who's home ported over in russia. the renda fills up with fuel in south korea and was going to pick up fuel in japan. they got shut out. they have to go to un-alaska dutch harbor on the aleutian chain to fill up with -- they're basically trying to top off in

un-alaska. but those of us who know the federal laws of the jones act, you know you've got an issue there so we had to get the department of defense, homeland security, department of energy in to get a jones act waiver so we can top off the russian fuel tanker in an alaska port so she can haul up north to deliver the fuel to the people of nome. pretty interesting saga, just in describing the beginning. this is over 1,000-mile nautical journey and you're breaking ice for about of the way. well, the renda is a pretty capable ship, but she's not an icebreaker, and so how she gets through that ice is the interesting part of the story. the coast guard cul cutter heel, who has been on a research

mission since early may, and was on her way back to seattle to deliver the crew after months of this mission, they get the call that nome needs help. and the fine men and women of the heeley missed their christmas, missed their new year's, stayed on board to turn around, go back up and be that escort for the renda to clear a path to nome. now, i think it's important to just stop here and recognize that this is not the coast guard doing something for the people of nome or the people of alaska that is not part of the coast guard's mission. this month-long journey was the first fuel delivery through sea ice in alaska's history, but it

wasn't the first time that the coast guard has worked to get fuel to a community. and i think this is an important point. back independent 2000 -- back in 2000, chiefster richard glasgow testified about ice-breaking operations on the hudson river. statistic there were five coast guard cutters that performed ice-breaking duties from sandy brook, nother, all the way up to troy, new york. and what they were doing is they were working to get heating fuel to about 4 million people in the communities along the river there. and officer glasgow testified that as a direct result of the coast guard's continuous ice-breaking efforts that winter, all 274 petroleum-bearing barges that started the trip up the hudson made it through the ice. and he also noted that if the hudson had remained closed to barge traffic, it would have taken over 21,000 tank truckloads to move that

petroleum, assuming that the trucks were available to make those deliveries. so you've got a situation where basically the coast guard comes to the rescue. they're saying, we can clear the path so that commerce can be facilitated, so these communities along the hudson have the fuel, have the resources that they need. the coast guard made it happen in an efficient and environmentally responsible way, avoiding 21,000 tank truckloads. now, this is not unlike the role that the coast guard played up in alaska, but the difference here with nome is there's not going to be 21,000 tankloads of petroleum because there's no road for those tankers. so we did not have that option for any other transport to the community short of air traffic.

and so when we -- when we look about what the coast guard cutter healy did and captain havlick, all the crew members, what they were doing is they were following in the footsteps of many members of the coast guard before them in carrying out the coast guard's stated ice operations mission, which is to assist vessels and communities in emergency situations and facilitate essential commercial maritime activities. in 2008, the coast guard carried out this mission by assisting with 680 ice transits, representing the transport of over $2 billion of cargo. similarly, just last year, coast guard cutters coordinated with the canadian coast guard ships to facilitate the movement of about $2 billion worth of critical goods on the great lakes. so, mr. president, i -- i point this out because i think it's important for people to know that in addition to all of the

other critical missions that the coast guard has, one of theirs is to assist vessels and communities in emergency situations to facilitate essential commercial maritime activities. getting fuel, an absolute bare necessity, to the people in this northwestern region at a time when temperatures are -- are 20 below for days and days on end, this -- this was critical to us and the coast guard did a remarkable job. and, again, recognizing that these are men and women who gave up their christmas holiday, who gave up their new year's holiday to assist. they were -- were really nothing short of remarkable. i had the opportunity to go onboard the healy when i was in nome last week as the renda was beginning to lay the hose from the fuel barge to the shore and

to be able to speak with the men and women who were exceptionally proud. but i told them, i said, you will go back home and your world will be changed because you will be able to stand up and say, yeah, i was on the healy when we broke ice to get the renda to help out the people of northwest alaska during a very difficult winter. well, give you the update. they were able to successfully lay the -- the hose -- i should tell you this part of it. so the tanker gets in close to nome after weeks of -- of transit and difficult transit, because what was happening was with the conditions of the thick ice and the currents and the winds, there were days when they actually went backwards. that the coast guard cutter healy break the ice, loosen it

up, but it was so cold and things were happening so fast that the ice would refreeze the distance between the cutter and the renda. in addition to some pretty tough environmental conditions, you've got a coast guard tanker that's leading a russian -- a coast guard cutter leading a russian tanker. we had some language issues going on, had to translate all this. we had some cultural differences going on. but what they were able to facilitate, again, was pretty he remarkable, and i'm -- i'm giving laudatory praise to our coast guard but i think it's also important to recognize the good work that the men of the renda did in assisting as well. what they were able to do using noaa satellites to determine where the best mapping would be, where to cut through that ice, they were able to break through and get within about a half a mile of -- of the shore of nome. it was close enough so that when i got off the healy, i was able

to take a snow machine to shore. it was about a three-minute snow machine ride. that's how close they were able to get in safely to the shore. the renda laid hose across the ice to connect to the tankers onshore. it was about a six-day process to fuel it up but they did it safely, without any incident whatsoever, were able to then close up that operation and last friday they took off from nome to go back, the renda to russia, and the coast guard healy -- cutter healy to go back to seattle. but that was friday. i asked for the progress report just this afternoon. they're approximately 240 nautical miles southwest of no nome, 275 nautical miles from the ice edge.

so they -- they still have a long ways to go getting through the ice. and you would ask the question, well, why don't you just go back the way that you came in because you cut the trail? doesn't work that way. it's cold up there. it's darn cold. and there's no more trail up there. in fact, what they're continuing to rely on are the noaa satellites to, again, help them map out a perhaps more efficient way. but it has been tough. they've got very challenging ice conditions, very steady, strong winds. the weather's given them exindz in excess of 25 to 30 knots, but hopefully they're going to be diminishing to 15 on friday. they're working with noaa and other folks to find really the safest, the most expedient out of the ice. but the ice forecast continues to see ice edge expanding to the south, so all the progress that they're making going south, the ice is just coming at them in the other direction. so it's -- it's challenging but,

again, extraordinary professionals. and professionals across agencies. i mentioned noaa. i mentioned what we needed to do in order to facilitate the -- the jones act waiver through department of energy, homeland, d.o.d., but you also had the state department that was involved. you had the e.p.a. that was involved. you had the native corporations, citnasuk that put this whole thing together. we had incredible local leadership coming out of the community of nome. we had the university of alaska researchers that helped with the u.a.v.'s to determine, again, how we best lay everything from the hose to -- to making sure what the safest place is to cross the ice. an incredible, incredible act of collaboration. mr. president, i -- i see that my friend from i will illinois is on the floor and i know that i've gone over my time. i've got about three more minutes to wrap up if i may, if

that works with my colleague. and coming from a state that appreciates snow, i think that you would like to hear the rest of my story here because i'm n not -- not done acknowledging the fine men and women of the coast guard. they also played a role in helping to dig out the community of kordova a couple weeks ago. we've had some pretty tough snows. kordova's a coastal community in south central and they got hammered. they got about 176 inches of snow. last week when we checked in, they had 16 feet of snow on the ground, which is pretty unusual. not quite valdez records, which is sitting at 27 feet right now. but it was enough that roofs were caving in, that there were public safety issues. and what the community did was come together, as small communities do, try to shovel out. but the guard was there, 50 or so -- 50 or 60 guardsmen were there.

the coast guard came back. they were helping shovel. and it was really quite a lovely community story. but, again, it's one of those that reminds us that sometimes when mother nature delivers us, whether it's -- it's -- it's winds and storms and cold in the north or whether it's hurricanes in the south, that we come together as a people, we come together as communities to help. and sometimes we have some real heroes that emerge, and some of those heroes for us in alaska these past few weeks have been our united states coast guard and our alaska national guar guardsmen and women. we -- as i started my comments, we say that we do things bigger in alaska, perhaps a little bolder. there's a -- there's a new movie that's coming out that -- i'll go ahead. i'm going to put a plug on it -- it's called "the big miracle" and it's about the risk you're of the whales back in the -- rescue of the whales back in the

late 1980's. some of you may remember the whales were trapped in the ice off of point barrow. and it's a wonderful story about how as alaskans we came together working with the russians, all agencies, environmental groups who would normally be in great opposition to -- to oil development folks all coming together for a common purpose, to do good things. and that movie, "big miracle," reminded me that in -- in alaska, we've got a few more big miracle as that we can brag about and it begins with people who -- who really make the health and safety and the well-being of others their top priority, even when they don't know any of these people. i know that the people of nome and kordova and -- and the people of valdez all, all give thanks to those who have stepped up during these tough winter months to -- to bail us out,

shovel us out but to there be at our side. so i thank you for the extra time that you have given me. i thank my colleague from illinois for that. but, again, extend my heartfelt thanks to our united states coast guard men and women as well as the fine men and women of the alaska national guard. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me thank my colleague from alaska. this week on national public radio, there was a feature about kordova and all the snow that they are trying to deal with there, and i'm sure this is perhaps commonplace in your great state, but as we listened to it in chicago and feel blessed that we really haven't been hit too hard yet this winter, our hearts go out to the men and women in the coast guard, national guard in alaska and the people who are struggling in your communities to survive these natural disasters. mr. president, each of us takes on an agenda in congress of things that are important to us personally and sometimes one or

two of those issues become very, very personal and very important to you. one that has become very personal to me relates to the dream act. the dream act is a bill that i introduced ten years ago -- ten years ago. now, to serve in the senate, you have to be a patient person because nothing happens quickly. but ten years is long enough. and i'm urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a close look at this legislation today. first to explain what it's all about. it's a bill that would allow students for earn, literally earn -- students to learn, literally earn, legal status in america. these are students who came to the united states as children. they have been here for a long period of time. they have good moral character. they must graduate from high school, speak english, and complete at least two years of service to our country in the military or at least two years of college.

i've talked to the presiding officer. that can include vocational training, which i think can be equally valuable to many young people. i certainly believe that that should be part of this conversation. the dream act would make us a better and stronger country. these young people are waiting for the opportunity to contribute to america. i've come to the floor dozens of times now to tell their stories. there was a time when they were afraid to speak out and to identify themselves, but thank god that's changed. they now speak up because they understand that when people see who they are, what they have done and what their dreams are, that they can appreciate the fact that these are good young people who, when given a chance, will make us a safer and stronger nation. that's why this proposal's been supported by the department of defense. they want these young people, these high school graduates of good character, to come into our military and make it better.

and, of course, many others see this as a valuable addition to our economy. tomorrow's engineers and scientists and teachers and doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs. these young people can make america a better place. i contacted the obama administration along with 21 of my colleagues earlier this year -- or last year, i should say, asking that they take a look at these young people when it comes to deportation. understand, we estimate there are 11 million undocumented people in america. there are some who just say, oh, send them all back. that is not even in the realm of reality. and so i've asked the obama administration, along with 20 of my colleagues, focus on those who are any danger to the united states and send them back, deport them. in fact, the obama administration has done just that. and i've asked them as well, since we have limited resources, please, try to identify those who might fall urn the

qualification of the -- under the qualification of the dream act and do not deport them. now, there are some who will argue, oh, wait a minute, they should all go. but we know we have limited resources for enforcement. if you were a state trooper parked on a side of a highway in illinois or west virginia and the speed limit is 55 miles an hour and one car comes by at 65 miles an hour and the next cup comes hurdling by at 110 miles an hour and you can only go after one car, which one will you go after? you know the answer. you go after the call that's traveling so fast that it's a danger to the occupants and everyone else. the same thing is true when it comes to questions of deportation. use good prosecutorial, sound judgment with limited resources to deport only those people who could be a threat ordaining to this united states. that's the first priority. just earlier today, senator grassley, who is the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, came to the floor and

claimed that the obama administration is using this discretionary authority to implement the dream act because it failed to pass congress. i respectfully disagree with my friend from iowa. the dream act would give these young people a chance to earn legal status. that is not the case when it comes to deportation. even if they are not deported, they are still not in a legal -- permanent legal situation here in the united states. their future is still in doubt and in question, so there is no parallel as far as that's concerned. i've come to the floor many times to introduce those who follow this debate to these young people to get to know who they are and why i think this cause is important and their lives are important to us. let me introduce today two of them. this is allah mccallo. she is of palestinian descent.

she was brought to the united states 19 years ago when she was 7 years old. she is 26 and she grew up in the suburbs of chicago, my home state. she was an honor student in high school and graduated from the university of illinois at urbana -champaign, a great university, with a bachelor's degree in architecture. she sent me a letter and here is what she said. being undocumented and with no patway to citizenship means i can't use my architectural degree. it means i can't get a job and move forward with my life. this year once again we wait for congress to do the right thing and give undocumented young people all across america a better chance to serve our communities and our country. i'm an asset to this country, a resource with a desire to make good use of my degree. i want to be able to work and design affordable housing for low-income communities. in the finest american tradition, allah has become an activist. she has stepped out to introduce herself to america, so we know

who these dream act students are and what they could mean to the future of our nation. let me also introduce to you this lovely young lady, maria luna. maria has a heartbreaking but inspiring story. her mother lives in the united states, but just before she was to be born in the united states, her mother fled the country and gave birth to her on the mexican side of the border. maria's mother abandoned her in mexico at that point, left her when she was only three days old. luckily, her grandmother stepped in and started raising maria in los angeles, california. her grand marry passed away when maria was 10 years old. after her grandmother's death, maria went to live with her biological mother who unfortunately was abusive, both physically and emotionally to this young woman. while she was in high school, maria learned that she did not have legal status because she was actually born across the

border in mexico. she asked her mother to file the papers for her so that she could be legal in america. her mother refused, and she threatened to turn her in to the authorities if she caused any trouble at home. maria persevered. she became a straight-a student. she graduated from high school with a 4.2 g.p.a. this is what she said." even though everything that i was facing at home -- even though -- even through everything that i was facing at home, i was able to find relief at school. at school, i felt worthy, my dignity was returned. i was valued based on my merit and drive." in 2010, maria graduated from california state university of sacramento. she also decided to start to tell her story publicly about why she believes the dream act is so important. maria wants to go to business school and become an entrepreneur. she has begun a career in modeling, as you can tell, a lovely young lady, and although she doesn't have legal status

and can't really be paid for her work. she sent me a letter and here's what she said -- "through my involvement with the dream act, i have learned of many students who like me have excelled despite tough odds. one thing that we all share in common is our hunger to succeed and give back to this country. my dreams and ambitions are all for america. this is where i belong. i know no other home. it is here that i was given an opportunity. it is here that i have become educated. america adopted me and raised me as her own, and because of that, i am forever indebted to her. all i want is to have the ability to give back to my country. mr. president, you and i know that this is a nation of immigrants. we are fortunate that at some point in the past, our parents and grandparents had the courage and determination to come to these shores and fight the odds. they came here speaking broken english, if any english. they persevered through the rejection of people who wanted nothing to do with immigrants.

they took the dirtiest, hardest jobs available because that was it, and they prayed that their kids would have a better life. that was the immigrant's dream and it always has been. that is the dream of these children, that they could have a better life, that they can make this a better country. all they're asking for is a chance to earn the right to be legal, to earn it. not to be given it but earn it. i'm going to continue to work for passage of the dream act. i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this in an honest and fair way. i know that immigration has been a hot-button issue since right after the pilgrims got off the mayflower. the next boat that arrived, i'm sure some of the pilgrims said oh, not more of those people. well, that's the story of america, and thank goodness a lot of those immigrants from italy, from lithuania, from poland, from china, from mexico decided to stick it out and fight for their future. these young people deserve that

same opportunity. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today as i have week after week, ever since the president's health care law was passed, to bring a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. i have traveled the state all the last week in wyoming, talking to people about the things that they look for in a health care law, which is what they want as patients, as citizens, and they look at it as what they are looking for for the care they need from a doctor they want at the price they can afford. across the board, they do not believe that they are getting that with the health care law that was passed in this body and then in the house and signed by president obama during -- during the last couple of years of the

administration. it's interesting as we go to the -- went to the floor of the house and the house chamber this past week for the president's state of the union speech. it was almost 7,000 words, and he focused very little on the health care law. he said well, why is that? well, it seems pretty obvious it's because that law was unpopular when it was passed and it is actually more unpopular with the american people today than it was the day it was passed. and the more people find out about it, the less popular it becomes. and even the white house understands that this law is deeply flawed, it's extremely unpopular, and it actually makes it harder for small businesses to create jobs. so when the president wants to talk about job creation in america, he realizes that his health care law isn't helping and it's actually making it worse. i had town hall meetings at different communities around wyoming last week.

when you gather a group of people together -- my colleagues ought to do the same thing in their own communities in their own home state, ask a group of people do you believe under this health care law, do you remember the one that the president promised that if you passed the cost of your insurance would go down, remember that law, do you believe that after that was passed that -- do you believe that your health care costs will actually go up? how many believe the cost of your care will go up and your insurance will go up? every hand goes up. and then you ask those same people who now say they are going to end up paying more, you say do you think that the quality -- because there is a lot of discussion about quality and access and concerns about care -- do you believe that the quality of your care will go down, again, the hands go up. so we have people that are saying we're going to be paying more and getting less, and that's not what i want. so today i'm here to discuss something about the health care

law that the president really did leave out of his big speech on tuesday night, and that's the issue of waivers. january 6, while we were all back in our home communities, many people talking to folks around their home state, january 6 while congress was not in session, the house was not in session, the senate was not in session, the administration ended their program that has really been a major embarrassment to the obama administration. month by month, the president has had to announce that he had to issue more and more waivers from his health care law, waivers that the president granted to unions, to businesses and to insurers. each and every waiver served as a clear administration that the health care law as written didn't get the job done, doesn't work. well, as of now, january 6, 2012, the administration has

issued a total number of waivers that covers more than 4.1 million americans. over 1,700 waivers were given covering more than 4.1 million americans. now, interestingly, of all those people, a very small percentage of them, of workers in this country are union workers, but yet over half of all the waivers given, 2.2 million of those people were those who are covered with union insurance. so you have 4.1 million americans given waivers, 2.2 million people with union insurance got a waiver. that's 54% of all of the waivers went to union employees who supported the health care law. these are the people that were out in the streets rallying. they say we want the health care

law, they have it on their websites, they had celebrations when it was passed. then remember what nancy pelosi said. first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. and as all of these people getting their insurance through unions found out that if they complied with the law as written, that it would break their policies, break their programs, and they said we cannot afford to have this law apply to us. please give us a waiver. 2.2 million people with union insurance got a waiver. and as i say, they let the word out january 6, 2012, while congress was not in session and while people were focused on other things. well, the rest of america's small business owners were not so lucky. a new policy from the chamber of commerce found that 78% of small businesses surveyed reported that taxation, regulation and

legislation from washington made it harder for their businesses to hire more workers. in that same poll, -- these are the small businesses of the country, people that are the job creators. in that same poll, 74% of small business owners said the recent health care law makes it harder for their business to hire more employees. now, aren't these the very people that we're asking to go out and hire more workers to get america back to work, but yet the president and the democrats' health care law is making it harder for 74% of our small businesses in this country to hire more employees. so how did we get here? well, in may of 2011, i came to the senate floor right here and explained that the waiver recipients under the way it worked had to reapply because they were getting annual benefit waiver limits year after year

after year. while realizing what an embarrassment this drip, drip, drip of new waivers was going to be by the administration in august of 2011, the administration switched course. the department of health and human services announced that at that point, if you wanted a waiver, you were going to have to apply for a final waiver that would carry on all the way through 2014, a three-year waiver, and they wanted to get all of this out by the beginning of 2012 so it wouldn't be a continued election year embarrassment for this president, this administration and those who voted for it. this scheme allowed the administration to dodge issuing more waivers leading up to the 2012 presidential election. it's clear that these waivers were going to be an election year embarrassment for the president.

they were an embarrassment because each and every waiver was yet another reminder to the american people that president obama's health care law wasn't working. the president promised and we remember hearing him loud and clear if you like the health insurance plan you have, he said, then you could keep it. well, what he meant was to keep the coverage you have if you like it, you may need a waiver from washington. i also want to talk for a moment about what happens now that this september deadline has passed, and these four million waivers have been granted. it's now no longer possible to apply for an annual benefit limit waiver. no longer an option for business owners in this country. so that means that it leaves hard-working americans who want to start a new business forced to choose between two options. and i think they're bad options. one, they can offer high-cost

government-approved health insurance. that's going to make it very expensive for them to try to open a new business and hire workers. the expense of opening that business may likely be too great. so those jobs are not created and unemployment rates stay high. or, two, don't offer coverage at all because they can't afford the health care law's onerous mandates. and if they choose that second option, what happens ultimately? well, the american taxpayers will end up footing the bill. with a $15 trillion debt, an unemployment hovering around 8.5%, the last thing we should do is adopt policies like this health care law and then this waiver plan that discourage america's best and brightest from starting new companies and hiring new workers. but that's exactly what president obama's health care law does.

stifles innovation, strangles the market and straddles the american people with more debt. this is just another example showing how the president's health care policies are making the situation worse. his policies are hurting america's economy. his policies are making the standard of living in america worse. his policies are making health care in america worse and his policies are making america's debt worse. almost immediately after president obama signed his health care bill into law, the employers around the country began to sound the alarm. they said that the health care law's annual benefit limit policy would force them to stop offering health insurance to hundreds of thousands of americans and their families. that's why the administration came up with this waiver idea. nowhere, nowhere in the health care law is the secretary of health and human services

granted ek applies it authority to start an annual benefit limit waiver program. nowhere in the law. what the administration should have done was come to congress and asked for help to mix the problem that they had created. that would mean, however, that the president and washington democrats would have to admit that their health care law was flawed. washington democrats crafted a policy mandating that everyone must buy government-approved health insurance. in many cases it's insurance these individuals don't need, don't want, and cannot afford. the president pushed his mandates on the american people without understanding how limited insurance products work in the marketplace. the administration simply ignored the fact that many employers cannot afford to offer the cad alack health insurance coverage to their workers that -- cadillac health insurance coverage to their

workers the government is mandating. if those businesses don't have a waiver already, they won't be able to offer their employees any health insurance coverage at all and new business startups won't have the opportunity to ask for a waiver. those employers might have wanted to offer some basic level of health insurance coverage to their new employees, but thanks to the obama administration, they won't be able to offer anything at all because of the expense. this is just another example of washington democrats pushing a one-size-fits-all, we-know-best policy where they think they know what's best for all of the people of this country. how many more disruptive ticking time bombs are there lurk, in this health care law? don't want know because many of the provisions do not even go into effect until 201 or later. and that's why, mr. president, i come to the floor week after week giving a doctor's second opinion to mention and to tell that i intend to fight each and

every day to make sure the american people will never have to find out come 2014. i am committed more than ever to repeal the health care law, repeal it and replace it with health care reforms that help merms american families get health care they need from a doctor that they want at a price they can afford. i thank you. mr. reid: this isn't the time for a debate with my friend, the distinguished senator from wyoming. but i would just say that there are two sides to the story. try to have my friend the senator from wyoming explaining to jeff hill, a young man who within two weeks after turning age 24, he had to go off his parents' insurance when he turned 23, he got testicular

cancer. his parents had to spend money they didn't have, borrow money they didn't have to take care of the problems this young man developed with testicular cancer. all the surgery and radiation and chemo that he had, and try to have him explain to the more than two million seniors who have been able to have wellness checks as a result of this law that we passed. how about the -- how about, mr. president, the people in nevada who have come to me with tears in their eyes explaining to me that their daughter or son now has the ability to have insurance because they can't be denied insurance because of pre-existing disability. so that's why, mr. president, we've seen this litigation which is -- has been generated, which the appellate courts by a 3-2 marine inhave favored the -- margin have favored the law including a brilliant

opinion by judge silverman in the d.c. court of appeals who upheld this law. that's why many consumer groups have joined in the appeal to the united states supreme court along with the pharmaceutical industry, along with the insurance companies because this is something that's good for the american consumer. that's why it was so unfortunate that the republicans blocked something that would have helped consumers and the financial wizardry that took place on -- took place on wall street that basically tore down the economies of so many different states. we wanted and when we passed the dodd-frank bill to make sure consumers were protected and that's why we tried for months and months to have someone selected to fill that spot. the republicans said we don't like the law. we like him but we don't like the law. we don't want the law effect waited so we're not going to approve him and they didn't. that's why president obama under the terms of the constitution

that's written to protect this country has in the power of that constitution recess appointments and that's what he did to protect the consumer. the health care law that we passed protects the consumer. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senate permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar 301, s. 2038. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report motion. the clerk: tomple are the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to consider calendar 301, a bill to prohibit members of congress and employees of congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit and for other purposes. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived and, mr. president, i got ahead of myself. i was in a hurry here. senator grassley wanted to speak and i guess he's left.

there's a cloture motion at the desk and that needs to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 801, st. 2038, the stop trading on congressional believe action, signed by 18 senators as followed. reid of nevada, lieberman, brown of ohio, man shen, udall of new mexico, kohl, lautenberg, shaheen, hard harkin, durry, and schumer. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived and the cloture vote occur at 30:00 on monday, january 30. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 3800 which was received from the house and

is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3800, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding authority of the airway trust fund and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, no intervening action or debate and any statements related to this matter placed in the record at the appropriate places if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.r. 3801. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3801, an act to amend the tariff act of 1930 to clarify the definition of aircraft and the offenses penalized under aviation penalized upped that act and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a three times, passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on table, there be no intervening action

or debate and any statements be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: it's my understanding this is legislation that has been pushed by gabrielle giffords who resigned from the house of representatives yesterday. what a wonderful statement that was made by members of the house yesterday, signifying the great courage the whole country feels this grant woman and we -- gallant woman and we all wish her the best in her future with her strength and courage and that heroic husband standing by her side, an astronaut, i'm sure she will fare better than we can even imagine. i ask unanimous consent we now proceed to s. 2039. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2039, a bill to allow a state or local government to construct levees on syrian properties otherwise designated as open space lands. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will

proceed to the measure. mr. reid: the boxer substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, january 30 following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved the morning business be deemed expired, time for the leeferredz reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in morning business until 4:30 with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and 4:30 resume consideration of calendar 301 with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided between the leaders or their designees. the next vote will take place next monday at 5:30 p.m. on a motion to vote cloture -- invoke cloture on s. 20308 the stock act.

if there is no further business i ask that it adjourn following the statements of senator boozman and senator hatch, said statements limited to 15 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, if i could note my friend from arkansas is here to speak. this is the last day the group of pages we've been with since september will spend this the senate. i believe i'm going to be able to speak at their gradual wakes. i'm quite sure that's true. tomorrow. i think that the pages render such terrific service to this body. they do a lot of things, get very little credit for what they do but we depend on them for some of the most menial tasks a lot of times. but they're always -- i've never had one treat me impolitely, over all the years i've been in the senate, and i

can only speak from personal experience and i've said this before on the senate floor and i'll say it again, my two oldest grandchildren or granddaughters they both served in the senate as pages and that really changed their lives and i say that without any reservation. they became more in tune with what's going on in our country, and it hasn't left them. they look back with great -- i don't know if reverence is the right word because main that's the wrong choice of word but they look back certainly fondly at the experience here in the senate. and i hope these young men and women understand how much we appreciate what they do, and we do hope that -- i do hope from a personal perspective that they have benefited as much as my two granddaughters did during the time here.